From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:48:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101119104856.GB28613@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101118114928.ecb2d6b0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:49:28AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:20:44 +0000
> Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
>
> > > It's because migration depends on MMU. But we should be able to make
> > > a NOMMU version of migration that just does page cache, which is all
> > > that is reclaimable on NOMMU anyway.
> > >
> >
> > Conceivably, but I see little problem leaving them with lumpy reclaim.
>
> I see a really big problem: we'll need to maintain lumpy reclaim for
> ever!
>
At least as long as !CONFIG_COMPACTION exists. That will be a while because
bear in mind CONFIG_COMPACTION is disabled by default (although I believe
some distros are enabling it at least). Maybe we should choose to deprecate
it in 2.6.40 and delete it at the infamous time of 2.6.42? That would give
ample time to iron out any issues that crop up with reclaim/compaction
(what this series has turned into).
Bear in mind that lumpy reclaim is heavily isolated these days. The logic
is almost entirely contained in isolate_lru_pages() in the block starting
with the comment "Attempt to take all pages in the order aligned region
surrounding the tag page". As disruptive as lumpy reclaim is, it's basically
just a linear scanner at the end of the day and there are a few examples of
that in the kernel. If we break it, it'll be obvious.
> We keep on piling in more and more stuff, we're getting less sure that
> the old stuff is still effective. It's becoming more and more
> important to move some of our attention over to simplification, and
> to rejustification of earlier decisions.
>
I'm open to its ultimate deletion but think it's rash to do on day 1 of
reclaim/compaction. I do recognise that I might be entirely on my own with
this opinion though :)
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-19 10:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-17 16:22 Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 1/8] mm: compaction: Add trace events for memory compaction activity Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 2/8] mm: vmscan: Convert lumpy_mode into a bitmask Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 3/8] mm: vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and use compaction instead of lumpy reclaim Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:30 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 4/8] mm: migration: Allow migration to operate asynchronously and avoid synchronous compaction in the faster path Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 5/8] mm: migration: Cleanup migrate_pages API by matching types for offlining and sync Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 6/8] mm: compaction: Perform a faster scan in try_to_compact_pages() Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-19 11:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 7/8] mm: compaction: Use the LRU to get a hint on where compaction should start Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 9:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 9:28 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-19 11:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 8/8] mm: vmscan: Rename lumpy_mode to reclaim_mode Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 23:46 ` [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations Andrew Morton
2010-11-18 2:03 ` Rik van Riel
2010-11-18 8:12 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 8:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 8:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-11-18 9:20 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-19 10:48 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-11-19 12:43 ` Theodore Tso
2010-11-19 14:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 15:45 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-18 8:44 ` Mel Gorman
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=20101119104856.GB28613@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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