Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1618425
| From | Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mm, compaction: restrict async compaction to pageblocks of same migratetype |
| Date | 2017-04-07 02:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ttq6t-8ax-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tinbX-80A-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tislk-35L-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tltbb-8fJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqokx-T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:06:41PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/16/2017 03:14 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:15:44PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> The migrate scanner in async compaction is currently limited to MIGRATE_MOVABLE > >> pageblocks. This is a heuristic intended to reduce latency, based on the > >> assumption that non-MOVABLE pageblocks are unlikely to contain movable pages. > >> > >> However, with the exception of THP's, most high-order allocations are not > >> movable. Should the async compaction succeed, this increases the chance that > >> the non-MOVABLE allocations will fallback to a MOVABLE pageblock, making the > >> long-term fragmentation worse. > > > > I agree with this idea but have some concerns on this change. > > > > *ASYNC* compaction is designed for reducing latency and this change > > doesn't fit it. If everything works fine, there is a few movable pages > > in non-MOVABLE pageblocks as you noted above. Moreover, there is quite > > less the number of non-MOVABLE pageblock than MOVABLE one so finding > > non-MOVABLE pageblock takes long time. These two factors will increase > > the latency of *ASYNC* compaction. > > Right. I lately started to doubt the whole idea of async compaction (for > non-movable allocations). Seems it's one of the compaction heuristics tuned > towards the THP usecase. But for non-movable allocations, we just can't have > both the low latency and long-term fragmentation avoidance. I see now even my > own skip_on_failure mode in isolate_migratepages_block() as a mistake for > non-movable allocations. Why do you think that skip_on_failure mode is a mistake? I think that it would lead to reduce the latency and it fits the goal of async compaction. > > Ideally I'd like to make async compaction redundant by kcompactd, and direct > compaction would mean a serious situation which should warrant sync compaction. > Meanwhile I see several options to modify this patch > - async compaction for non-movable allocations will stop doing the > skip_on_failure mode, and won't restrict the pageblock at all. patch 8/8 will > make sure that also this kind of compaction finishes the whole pageblock > - non-movable allocations will skip async compaction completely and go for sync > compaction immediately IMO, concept of async compaction is also important for non-movable allocation. Non-movable allocation is essential for some workload and they hope the low latency. Thanks.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mm, compaction: restrict async compaction to pageblocks of same migratetype Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2017-03-29 18:10 +0200 Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mm, compaction: restrict async compaction to pageblocks of same migratetype Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2017-04-07 02:40 +0200
csiph-web