Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1444328
| From | Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority |
| Date | 2016-07-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rVbvs-7t6-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rNw41-6qx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNw41-6qx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRNIZ-563-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 07/06/2016 07:39 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:54:32AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> During reclaim/compaction loop, compaction priority can be increased by the >> should_compact_retry() function, but the current code is not optimal. Priority >> is only increased when compaction_failed() is true, which means that compaction >> has scanned the whole zone. This may not happen even after multiple attempts >> with the lower priority due to parallel activity, so we might needlessly >> struggle on the lower priority and possibly run out of compaction retry >> attempts in the process. >> >> We can remove these corner cases by increasing compaction priority regardless >> of compaction_failed(). Examining further the compaction result can be >> postponed only after reaching the highest priority. This is a simple solution >> and we don't need to worry about reaching the highest priority "too soon" here, >> because hen should_compact_retry() is called it means that the system is >> already struggling and the allocation is supposed to either try as hard as >> possible, or it cannot fail at all. There's not much point staying at lower >> priorities with heuristics that may result in only partial compaction. >> Also we now count compaction retries only after reaching the highest priority. > > I'm not sure that this patch is safe. Deferring and skip-bit in > compaction is highly related to reclaim/compaction. Just ignoring them and (almost) > unconditionally increasing compaction priority will result in less > reclaim and less success rate on compaction. I don't see why less reclaim? Reclaim is always attempted before compaction and compaction priority doesn't affect it. And as long as reclaim wants to retry, should_compact_retry() isn't even called, so the priority stays. I wanted to change that in v1, but Michal suggested I shouldn't. > And, as a necessarily, it > would trigger OOM more frequently. OOM is only allowed for costly orders. If reclaim itself doesn't want to retry for non-costly orders anymore, and we finally start calling should_compact_retry(), then I guess the system is really struggling already and eventual OOM wouldn't be premature? > It would not be your fault. This patch is reasonable in current > situation. It just makes current things more deterministic > although I dislike that current things and this patch would amplify > those problem. > > Thanks. >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-07-15 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-18 06:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-07-18 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-19 06:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 12/17] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-07-19 09:50 +0200
csiph-web