Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1612104 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mm, compaction: restrict async compaction to pageblocks of same migratetype

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1612104 — Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] mm, compaction: restrict async compaction to pageblocks of same migratetype

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.

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

Both options mean we won't clean the unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks as
aggressively, but perhaps the tradeoff won't be bad. What do you think?
Johannes, would you be able/willing to test such modification?

Thanks

> And, there is a concern in implementaion side. With this change, there
> is much possibilty that compaction scanner's met by ASYNC compaction.
> It resets the scanner position and SYNC compaction would start the
> scan at the beginning of the zone every time. It would make cached
> position useless and inefficient.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1618425

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web