From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
mhocko@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, s.priebe@profihost.ag,
mgorman@techsingularity.net,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alex.williamson@redhat.com, lkp@01.org, kirill@shutemov.name,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:57:55 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812031452280.253907@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whDg5+e2-eXYo-jwC1spt2r7JjLQSaLm4OyfGMQHLTrdw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Side note: I think maybe people should just look at that whole
> compaction logic for that block, because it doesn't make much sense to
> me:
>
> /*
> * Checks for costly allocations with __GFP_NORETRY, which
> * includes THP page fault allocations
> */
> if (costly_order && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
> /*
> * If compaction is deferred for high-order allocations,
> * it is because sync compaction recently failed. If
> * this is the case and the caller requested a THP
> * allocation, we do not want to heavily disrupt the
> * system, so we fail the allocation instead of entering
> * direct reclaim.
> */
> if (compact_result == COMPACT_DEFERRED)
> goto nopage;
>
> /*
> * Looks like reclaim/compaction is worth trying, but
> * sync compaction could be very expensive, so keep
> * using async compaction.
> */
> compact_priority = INIT_COMPACT_PRIORITY;
> }
>
> this is where David wants to add *his* odd test, and I think everybody
> looks at that added case
>
> + if (order == pageblock_order &&
> + !(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + goto nopage;
>
> and just goes "Eww".
>
> But I think the real problem is that it's the "goto nopage" thing that
> makes _sense_, and the current cases for "let's try compaction" that
> are the odd ones, and then David adds one new special case for the
> sensible behavior.
>
> For example, why would COMPACT_DEFERRED mean "don't bother", but not
> all the other reasons it didn't really make sense?
>
> So does it really make sense to fall through AT ALL to that "retry"
> case, when we explicitly already had (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)?
>
> Maybe the real fix is to instead of adding yet another special case
> for "goto nopage", it should just be unconditional: simply don't try
> to compact large-pages if __GFP_NORETRY was set.
>
I think what is intended, which may not be represented by the code, is
that if compaction is not suitable (__compaction_suitable() returns
COMPACT_SKIPPED because of failing watermarks) that for non-hugepage
allocations reclaim may be useful. We just want to reclaim memory so that
memory compaction has pages available for migration targets.
Note the same caveat I keep bringing up still applies, though: if reclaim
frees memory that is iterated over by the compaction migration scanner, it
was pointless. That is a memory compaction implementation detail and can
lead to a lot of unnecessary reclaim (or even thrashing) if unmovable page
fragmentation cause compaction to fail even after it has migrated
everything it could. I think the likelihood of that happening increases
by the allocation order.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-03 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-27 6:25 [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression kernel test robot
2018-11-27 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-27 18:17 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-27 18:21 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-27 19:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-11-27 19:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-11-27 20:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-11-27 22:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-28 6:30 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-28 3:20 ` Huang, Ying
2018-11-28 16:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-11-28 18:39 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-11-28 23:10 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-03 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 18:14 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-03 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 18:30 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-03 18:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 18:59 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-03 19:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-03 20:26 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-03 19:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 20:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-03 20:36 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-03 22:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 22:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-03 22:57 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2018-12-04 9:22 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-04 10:45 ` Mel Gorman
2018-12-05 0:47 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-05 9:08 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-05 10:43 ` Mel Gorman
2018-12-05 11:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-05 10:06 ` Mel Gorman
2018-12-05 20:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-05 21:59 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-06 0:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-05 22:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-05 22:12 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-05 23:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-05 23:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-06 0:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-06 9:14 ` MADV_HUGEPAGE vs. NUMA semantic (was: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression) Michal Hocko
2018-12-06 23:49 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-07 7:34 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-07 4:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-07 7:49 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-07 9:06 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-07 23:15 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-06 23:43 ` [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression David Rientjes
2018-12-07 4:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-12-10 0:29 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-10 4:49 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-12 0:37 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-12 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-12 17:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-14 11:32 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-12 10:14 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-14 21:04 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-14 21:33 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-21 22:18 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-22 12:08 ` Mel Gorman
2018-12-14 23:11 ` Mel Gorman
2018-12-21 22:15 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-12 10:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-04-15 11:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-06 0:18 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-06 0:54 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2018-12-06 9:23 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-12-03 20:39 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-03 21:25 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-03 21:53 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-04 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-05 0:07 ` David Rientjes
2018-12-05 10:18 ` Michal Hocko
2018-12-05 19:16 ` David Rientjes
2018-11-27 7:23 kernel test robot
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1812031452280.253907@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=s.priebe@profihost.ag \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu \
/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).