Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1236320
| From | Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations |
| Date | 2015-09-30 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qeq5l-6MN-43@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q0YTf-7q8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q0ZcD-7Np-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6mrU-7dD-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6N8L-3wZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qelp0-8sJ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 09/30/2015 10:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >>> 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>: >>>> The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always >>>> make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). >>>> These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for >>>> forward progress. >>>> >>>> High-order watermarks serve a different purpose. Kswapd had no high-order >>>> awareness before they were introduced (https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/9/5/9). >>>> This was particularly important when there were high-order atomic requests. >>>> The watermarks both gave kswapd awareness and made a reserve for those >>>> atomic requests. >>>> >>>> There are two important side-effects of this. The most important is that >>>> a non-atomic high-order request can fail even though free pages are available >>>> and the order-0 watermarks are ok. The second is that high-order watermark >>>> checks are expensive as the free list counts up to the requested order must >>>> be examined. >>>> >>>> With the introduction of MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC it is no longer necessary to >>>> have high-order watermarks. Kswapd and compaction still need high-order >>>> awareness which is handled by checking that at least one suitable high-order >>>> page is free. >>> >>> I still don't think that this one suitable high-order page is enough. >>> If fragmentation happens, there would be no order-2 freepage. If kswapd >>> prepares only 1 order-2 freepage, one of two successive process forks >>> (AFAIK, fork in x86 and ARM require order 2 page) must go to direct reclaim >>> to make order-2 freepage. Kswapd cannot make order-2 freepage in that >>> short time. It causes latency to many high-order freepage requestor >>> in fragmented situation. >>> >> >> So what do you suggest instead? A fixed number, some other heuristic? >> You have pushed several times now for the series to focus on the latency >> of standard high-order allocations but again I will say that it is outside >> the scope of this series. If you want to take steps to reduce the latency >> of ordinary high-order allocation requests that can sleep then it should >> be a separate series. > > I do believe https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/9/313 does a better job Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not related to that CMA problem. > here. I have to admit the patch header is a bit misleading here since > we don't actually exclude CMA pages, we just _fix_ the calculation in > the loop which is utterly wrong otherwise. > > ~vitaly > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2015-09-30 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2015-09-30 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2015-09-30 17:20 +0200
csiph-web