From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Charan Teja Reddy <charante@codeaurora.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com,
khalid.aziz@oracle.com, ngupta@nitingupta.dev,
vinmenon@codeaurora.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] mm/compaction: correct deferral logic for proactive compaction
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 14:54:47 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <627a82ec-94ef-a233-4637-28bc82a886e9@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <80a1a433-c520-4c73-61ce-55cf33739fc5@suse.cz>
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/19/21 8:26 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Charan Teja Reddy wrote:
> >
> >> should_proactive_compact_node() returns true when sum of the
> >> weighted fragmentation score of all the zones in the node is greater
> >> than the wmark_high of compaction, which then triggers the proactive
> >> compaction that operates on the individual zones of the node. But
> >> proactive compaction runs on the zone only when its weighted
> >> fragmentation score is greater than wmark_low(=wmark_high - 10).
> >>
> >> This means that the sum of the weighted fragmentation scores of all the
> >> zones can exceed the wmark_high but individual weighted fragmentation
> >> zone scores can still be less than wmark_low which makes the unnecessary
> >> trigger of the proactive compaction only to return doing nothing.
> >>
> >> Issue with the return of proactive compaction with out even trying is
> >> its deferral. It is simply deferred for 1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT if
> >> the scores across the proactive compaction is same, thinking that
> >> compaction didn't make any progress but in reality it didn't even try.
> >
> > Isn't this an issue in deferred compaction as well? It seems like
> > deferred compaction should check that work was actually performed before
> > deferring subsequent calls to compaction.
>
> Direct compaction does, proactive not.
>
> > In other words, I don't believe deferred compaction is intended to avoid
> > checks to determine if compaction is worth it; it should only defer
> > *additional* work that was not productive.
>
> Yeah, that should be more optimal.
>
Charan, is this something you'd like to follow up on, or should I take a
look instead?
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-24 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-18 17:12 [PATCH V3] mm/compaction: correct deferral logic for proactive compaction Charan Teja Reddy
2021-01-18 17:41 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-19 15:42 ` Khalid Aziz
2021-01-19 19:26 ` David Rientjes
2021-01-20 11:04 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-01-24 22:54 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2021-01-27 15:47 ` Charan Teja Kalla
2021-01-25 15:56 ` 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=627a82ec-94ef-a233-4637-28bc82a886e9@google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=charante@codeaurora.org \
--cc=khalid.aziz@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=ngupta@nitingupta.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=vinmenon@codeaurora.org \
/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).