From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] mm, hugetlb: allow hugepage allocations to excessively reclaim
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:15:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c220179-09cc-569f-8cfa-8e2ab5212faa@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910041058330.16371@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 10/4/19 11:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> Requesting the userspace to drop _all_ page cache in order allocate a
>> number of hugetlb pages or any other affected __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
>> requests is simply not reasonable IMHO.
>
> It can be used as a fallback when writing to nr_hugepages and the amount
> allocated did not match expectation. Again, I'll defer all of this to
> Mike when he returns: he expressed his preference, I suggested an
> alternative to consider, and he can make the decision to ack or nack this
> patch because he has a better understanding of that expectation from users
> who use hugetlb pages.
I believe these modifications to commit b39d0ee2632d are absolutely necessary
to maintain expected hugetlbfs functionality. Michal's simple test in the
rewritten commit message shows the type of regressions that I expect some
hugetlbfs users to experience. The expectation today is that the kernel will
try hard to allocate the requested number of hugetlb pages. These pages are
often used for very long running processes. Therefore, the tradeoff of more
reclaim (and compaction) activity up front to create the pages is generally
acceptable.
My apologies if the 'testing' I did in [1] was taken as an endorsement of
b39d0ee2632d working well with hugetlbfs. It was a limited test that I knew
did not cover all cases. Therefore, I suggested that if b39d0ee2632d went
forward there should be an exception for __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL requests.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/3468b605-a3a9-6978-9699-57c52a90bd7e@oracle.com
--
Mike Kravetz
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-07 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 23:03 [rfc] mm, hugetlb: allow hugepage allocations to excessively reclaim David Rientjes
2019-10-02 23:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-03 5:00 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-03 5:27 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-03 8:14 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-10-03 19:52 ` David Rientjes
2019-10-04 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2019-10-04 18:02 ` David Rientjes
2019-10-07 22:15 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
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=3c220179-09cc-569f-8cfa-8e2ab5212faa@oracle.com \
--to=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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: 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).