From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:48:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160818094844.GG30162@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f761527-ed12-ba16-0565-c64d14e200eb@suse.cz>
On Thu 18-08-16 11:44:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/18/2016 11:10 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 10-08-16 11:12:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > During reclaim/compaction loop, compaction priority can be increased by the
> > > should_compact_retry() function, but the current code is not optimal. Priority
> > > is only increased when compaction_failed() is true, which means that compaction
> > > has scanned the whole zone. This may not happen even after multiple attempts
> > > with a lower priority due to parallel activity, so we might needlessly
> > > struggle on the lower priorities and possibly run out of compaction retry
> > > attempts in the process.
> > >
> > > After this patch we are guaranteed at least one attempt at the highest
> > > compaction priority even if we exhaust all retries at the lower priorities.
> >
> > I expect we will tend to do some special handling at the highest
> > priority so guaranteeing at least one run with that prio seems sensible to me. The only
> > question is whether we really want to enforce the highest priority for
> > costly orders as well. I think we want to reserve the highest (maybe add
> > one more) prio for !costly orders as those invoke the OOM killer and the
> > failure are quite disruptive.
>
> Costly orders are already ruled out of reaching the highest priority unless
> they are __GFP_REPEAT, so I assumed that if they are allocations with
> __GFP_REPEAT, they really would like to succeed, so let them use the highest
> priority.
But even when __GFP_REPEAT is set then we do not want to be too
aggressive. E.g. hugetlb pages are better to fail than the cause
excessive reclaim or cause some long term fragmentation issues which
might be a result of the skipped heuristics. costly orders are IMHO
simply second class citizens even with they ask to try harder with
__GFP_REPEAT.
--
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:[~2016-08-18 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-10 9:12 [PATCH v6 00/11] make direct compaction more deterministic Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 01/11] mm, compaction: make whole_zone flag ignore cached scanner positions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 02/11] mm, compaction: cleanup unused functions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 03/11] mm, compaction: rename COMPACT_PARTIAL to COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:01 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 04/11] mm, compaction: don't recheck watermarks after COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:12 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:11 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 11:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:03 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 05/11] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 5:58 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:23 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase " Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:07 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-18 9:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:48 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 07/11] mm, compaction: use correct watermark when checking compaction success Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 08/11] mm, compaction: create compact_gap wrapper Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:15 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:41 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:13 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 09/11] mm, compaction: use proper alloc_flags in __compaction_suitable() Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 10/11] mm, compaction: require only min watermarks for non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:16 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:46 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:20 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 11/11] mm, vmscan: make compaction_ready() more accurate and readable Vlastimil Babka
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=20160818094844.GG30162@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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=riel@redhat.com \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).