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 16:52:37 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160922145237.GH11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160922140821.GG11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> On Thu 22-09-16 16:08:21, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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 did that should be > 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 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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 16:52:37 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160922145237.GH11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160922140821.GG11875@dhcp22.suse.cz> On Thu 22-09-16 16:08:21, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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 did that should be > 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 -- 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:[~2016-09-22 14:52 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 2016-09-22 14:08 ` Michal Hocko 2016-09-22 14:52 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 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=20160922145237.GH11875@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 \ /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.