From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562B2C74A3E for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275B12086D for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 275B12086D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B46268E008C; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AF6438E0032; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9E4EE8E008C; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D7F8E0032 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id b33so2289628edc.17 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PESIESDa1LKCYTt63jPv3LDj5bQv+KBzFK/nZVh/JdI=; b=XStQcVzvNQRJjRcYg6R+LGjAjt9P0R4GNpbuIGJm4ttGLlbm8Q3V2zv/h7vyeRKAGo ZDe/rxyf7/8o+cNN5DQkeheNkdq4Zj+YKIXleCBFw1KhkyBtjr+kyQpTFL+fL/3XV/jj Mq35BN2V4l1MQTPvpMZMl0NXGKvpEUJrHlXolEbt8Kus03r4ClnRrdXLq2Fx+mkXlczl 0LBpIwd192QX6YMOzoCuRfbJpe7m9YoQjaRAqsyrPJGXGwq4f6RRol6FUsyYjTOuukMA MBRausv4CDZ9EFSBOFotMC+P5uSpbn/nffVDp6c9uJL57NMCUpN5unBFYaaA9ILi4wPX dt9g== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning mhocko@kernel.org does not designate 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUEgyZHzB0Ts1tS2k3u5+RMOzqy22f6cRgWetrkmTLiu9zKPnNE Tns+NlGWVKsQ3vqVfQv6XcFUG1EOWz0F9hIvnryT+CALvl/sKcSXYRqH3Ae50YRZ4RmJNNHIxf1 FD/6S1/bvs+lL6QHmmibgs9gnPZ0lXpdGaPM8L8je5sk9Y9SftU6aWFZHxFiTAEE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b2cd:: with SMTP id cf13mr25314753ejb.197.1562787847953; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5WMHcEA18Ek7WuNkYGDuUAF4bsYbFyc8+8a1cPPkrwnEKGWfK8K63lH+8rZ6eKu2EPQW5 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b2cd:: with SMTP id cf13mr25314713ejb.197.1562787846978; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:44:06 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562787846; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=sd+g49Z1/F6xbRiU/RZCx6kpxdIdYvS6ZykZlLhfbEZAkWcrZKJsmlk1N3vaTaQadh Da3HtqYz3NnSKNZm0eCjfoHq9k2fvqc0uR+iagbAOwnuz3ucrBLDztG+1ilx8nGTTA2c JDMnnwgbx2es4ogk2iCBUNKLc1VnT07Ug+WhkRbwBVx1CHRQM+WyQetwqJKcZkDDK4dA i2PQkPlJqZl1SGs6m1BSwN+hoQVXmtBVNrpdmdTesTtsCiehhWF/bCLaktdKPCrOgSlw RS2EDeO83pzcLzZ1MuQupvq8x5Abn1IwuWECvL2M1n3M0vywdViV9ICo44chsvtLys6a fjtg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=PESIESDa1LKCYTt63jPv3LDj5bQv+KBzFK/nZVh/JdI=; b=OX65soMuXBy2Pv6/nyHvJispJpQrvpjFDdNlZb7y8aee/897AtnzvBNbtuvr4p0GaF uZ9EX04u5R7NXp9vwd7kDTYli6iWmqZ1Jtif6wIMmIy7YGwx5WhMgS7XB2F0nrG0ztnz pMtssWbGjt3SPPj1ORBpinekWFkZjrkC+Lsc9850Quw/wKKlYBY7MidyiMzKn7JEO6TP +rK6OdCNFw2Dj2p9YUqvFpahqHBPPZ8RrEw+NyIOChEEqZijRN6d/Y1L9GHXM9+uTPLl ktQsA+Y4dYprjC7MbOPeJ6Ck3hc0b11oWYz7nCcKr21PwmjEhsNlhnV5dADqs0mya0bg udaQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning mhocko@kernel.org does not designate 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c31si2081406edb.418.2019.07.10.12.44.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning mhocko@kernel.org does not designate 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=195.135.220.15; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning mhocko@kernel.org does not designate 195.135.220.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15100AC37; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:44:03 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Mike Kravetz Cc: Hillf Danton , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded? Message-ID: <20190710194403.GR29695@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <80036eed-993d-1d24-7ab6-e495f01b1caa@oracle.com> <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 10-07-19 11:42:40, Mike Kravetz wrote: [...] > As Michal suggested, I'm going to do some testing to see what impact > dropping the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag for these huge page allocations > will have on the number of pages allocated. Just to clarify. I didn't mean to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL from the allocation request. I meant to drop the special casing of the flag in should_continue_reclaim. I really have hard time to argue for this special casing TBH. The flag is meant to retry harder but that shouldn't be reduced to a single reclaim attempt because that alone doesn't really help much with the high order allocation. It is more about compaction to be retried harder. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs