From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify COMPACTION Kconfig text Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:44:13 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160826064406.GB16195@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608251524140.48031@chino.kir.corp.google.com> On Thu 25-08-16 15:34:54, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I don't believe it has been an issue in the past for any archs that > > > don't use thp. > > > > Well, fragmentation is a real problem and order-0 reclaim will be never > > anywhere close to reliably provide higher order pages. Well, reclaiming > > a lot of memory can increase the probability of a success but that > > can quite often lead to over reclaim and long stalls. There are other > > sources of high order requests than THP so this is not about THP at all > > IMHO. > > > > Would it be possible to list the high-order allocations you are concerned > about other than thp that doesn't have fallback behavior like skbuff and > slub allocations? struct task_struct is an order-1 allocation and there > may be order-1 slab bucket usage, but what is higher order or requires > aggressive compaction to allocate? kernel stacks (order-2 on many arches), some arches need higher order pages for page table allocations (at least the upper level AFAIR). > Surely you're not suggesting that order-0 reclaim cannot form order-1 > memory. I haven't seen fragmentation that bad that order-1 would be completely depleted so I wouldn't be all that worried about this. But order-2 can get depleted as our last oom reports show. > I am concerned about kernels that require a small memory footprint and > cannot enable all of CONFIG_COMPACTION and CONFIG_MIGRATION. Embedded > devices are not a negligible minority of kernels. Fair enough. And nobody discourages them from disabling the compaction. I would expect that kernels for those machines are configured by people who know what they are doing. They have to be careful about disabling many other things already and carefully weight the missing functionality vs. code size savings. I also expect that workloads on those machines are also careful to not require large physically contiguous memory blocks very much. Otherwise they would have problems described by the help text. So I am not really sure what you are objecting to. I am not making COMPACTION on unconditionally. I just want to make sure that regular users do not think this is just a THP thing which is not true since the lumpy reclaim is gone. On my laptop I have more than 40 slab caches which have pagesperslab > 2. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify COMPACTION Kconfig text Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:44:13 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160826064406.GB16195@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608251524140.48031@chino.kir.corp.google.com> On Thu 25-08-16 15:34:54, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I don't believe it has been an issue in the past for any archs that > > > don't use thp. > > > > Well, fragmentation is a real problem and order-0 reclaim will be never > > anywhere close to reliably provide higher order pages. Well, reclaiming > > a lot of memory can increase the probability of a success but that > > can quite often lead to over reclaim and long stalls. There are other > > sources of high order requests than THP so this is not about THP at all > > IMHO. > > > > Would it be possible to list the high-order allocations you are concerned > about other than thp that doesn't have fallback behavior like skbuff and > slub allocations? struct task_struct is an order-1 allocation and there > may be order-1 slab bucket usage, but what is higher order or requires > aggressive compaction to allocate? kernel stacks (order-2 on many arches), some arches need higher order pages for page table allocations (at least the upper level AFAIR). > Surely you're not suggesting that order-0 reclaim cannot form order-1 > memory. I haven't seen fragmentation that bad that order-1 would be completely depleted so I wouldn't be all that worried about this. But order-2 can get depleted as our last oom reports show. > I am concerned about kernels that require a small memory footprint and > cannot enable all of CONFIG_COMPACTION and CONFIG_MIGRATION. Embedded > devices are not a negligible minority of kernels. Fair enough. And nobody discourages them from disabling the compaction. I would expect that kernels for those machines are configured by people who know what they are doing. They have to be careful about disabling many other things already and carefully weight the missing functionality vs. code size savings. I also expect that workloads on those machines are also careful to not require large physically contiguous memory blocks very much. Otherwise they would have problems described by the help text. So I am not really sure what you are objecting to. I am not making COMPACTION on unconditionally. I just want to make sure that regular users do not think this is just a THP thing which is not true since the lumpy reclaim is gone. On my laptop I have more than 40 slab caches which have pagesperslab > 2. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-26 6:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-08-23 8:09 [PATCH] mm: clarify COMPACTION Kconfig text Michal Hocko 2016-08-23 8:09 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-23 8:38 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2016-08-23 8:38 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2016-08-23 9:17 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-23 9:17 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-25 0:54 ` David Rientjes 2016-08-25 0:54 ` David Rientjes 2016-08-25 6:54 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-25 6:54 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-25 22:34 ` David Rientjes 2016-08-25 22:34 ` David Rientjes 2016-08-26 6:44 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2016-08-26 6:44 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-29 14:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-08-29 14:10 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-08-29 14:50 ` Michal Hocko 2016-08-29 14:50 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160826064406.GB16195@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=js1304@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=markus@trippelsdorf.de \ --cc=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.