All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
	Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:08:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160922140821.GG11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1670976-b4da-5d2c-0a85-37f9a87d6868@suse.cz>

On Thu 22-09-16 14:51:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >From 465e1bd61b7a6d6901a44f09b1a76514dbc220fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:54:32 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction
>  priority-fix
> 
> When increasing the compaction priority, also reset retries. Otherwise we can
> consume all retries on the lower priorities.

OK, this is an improvement. I am just thinking that we might want to
pull
	if (order && compaction_made_progress(compact_result))
		compaction_retries++;

into should_compact_retry as well. I've had it there originally because
it was in line with no_progress_loops but now that we have compaction
priorities it would fit into retry logic better. As a plus it would
count only those compaction rounds where we we didn't have to rely on
the compaction retry logic. What do you think?

> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Anyway
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index f8bed910e3cf..82fdb690ac62 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3162,7 +3162,7 @@ static inline bool
>  should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  		     enum compact_result compact_result,
>  		     enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> -		     int compaction_retries)
> +		     int *compaction_retries)
>  {
>  	int max_retries = MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES;
>  
> @@ -3196,16 +3196,17 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  	 */
>  	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
>  		max_retries /= 4;
> -	if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
> +	if (*compaction_retries <= max_retries)
>  		return true;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Make sure there is at least one attempt at the highest priority
> -	 * if we exhausted all retries at the lower priorities
> +	 * Make sure there are attempts at the highest priority if we exhausted
> +	 * all retries or failed at the lower priorities.
>  	 */
>  check_priority:
>  	if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
>  		(*compact_priority)--;
> +		*compaction_retries = 0;
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  	return false;
> @@ -3224,7 +3225,7 @@ static inline bool
>  should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
>  		     enum compact_result compact_result,
>  		     enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> -		     int compaction_retries)
> +		     int *compaction_retries)
>  {
>  	struct zone *zone;
>  	struct zoneref *z;
> @@ -3663,7 +3664,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  	if (did_some_progress > 0 &&
>  			should_compact_retry(ac, order, alloc_flags,
>  				compact_result, &compact_priority,
> -				compaction_retries))
> +				&compaction_retries))
>  		goto retry;
>  
>  	/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
> -- 
> 2.10.0
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
	Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:08:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160922140821.GG11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1670976-b4da-5d2c-0a85-37f9a87d6868@suse.cz>

On Thu 22-09-16 14:51:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >From 465e1bd61b7a6d6901a44f09b1a76514dbc220fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 13:54:32 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction
>  priority-fix
> 
> When increasing the compaction priority, also reset retries. Otherwise we can
> consume all retries on the lower priorities.

OK, this is an improvement. I am just thinking that we might want to
pull
	if (order && compaction_made_progress(compact_result))
		compaction_retries++;

into should_compact_retry as well. I've had it there originally because
it was in line with no_progress_loops but now that we have compaction
priorities it would fit into retry logic better. As a plus it would
count only those compaction rounds where we we didn't have to rely on
the compaction retry logic. What do you think?

> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Anyway
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index f8bed910e3cf..82fdb690ac62 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3162,7 +3162,7 @@ static inline bool
>  should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  		     enum compact_result compact_result,
>  		     enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> -		     int compaction_retries)
> +		     int *compaction_retries)
>  {
>  	int max_retries = MAX_COMPACT_RETRIES;
>  
> @@ -3196,16 +3196,17 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  	 */
>  	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
>  		max_retries /= 4;
> -	if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
> +	if (*compaction_retries <= max_retries)
>  		return true;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Make sure there is at least one attempt at the highest priority
> -	 * if we exhausted all retries at the lower priorities
> +	 * Make sure there are attempts at the highest priority if we exhausted
> +	 * all retries or failed at the lower priorities.
>  	 */
>  check_priority:
>  	if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
>  		(*compact_priority)--;
> +		*compaction_retries = 0;
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  	return false;
> @@ -3224,7 +3225,7 @@ static inline bool
>  should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
>  		     enum compact_result compact_result,
>  		     enum compact_priority *compact_priority,
> -		     int compaction_retries)
> +		     int *compaction_retries)
>  {
>  	struct zone *zone;
>  	struct zoneref *z;
> @@ -3663,7 +3664,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  	if (did_some_progress > 0 &&
>  			should_compact_retry(ac, order, alloc_flags,
>  				compact_result, &compact_priority,
> -				compaction_retries))
> +				&compaction_retries))
>  		goto retry;
>  
>  	/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
> -- 
> 2.10.0
> 

-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-22 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-06 13:52 [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request" Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:04   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:04     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:13     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 12:51     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 12:51       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:08       ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-09-22 14:08         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52           ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:59           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:59             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  4:04             ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  4:04               ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  6:55               ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  6:55                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:23                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:23                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:47                   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 10:47                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:06                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:06                       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: restrict full priority to non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:15   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:15     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction: make full priority ignore pageblock suitability Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-15 18:51 ` [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-15 18:51   ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-21 17:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:18   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 15:18   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:18     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:26     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:26       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:55       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 10:55         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:09         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:09           ` 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=20160922140821.GG11875@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
    --cc=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority' \
    /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: link

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.