linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] mm, oom, compaction: prevent from should_compact_retry looping for ever for costly orders
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:04:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160504090448.GF29978@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160504062748.GC10899@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>

On Wed 04-05-16 15:27:48, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:27PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > +bool compaction_zonelist_suitable(struct alloc_context *ac, int order,
> > +		int alloc_flags)
> > +{
> > +	struct zone *zone;
> > +	struct zoneref *z;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Make sure at least one zone would pass __compaction_suitable if we continue
> > +	 * retrying the reclaim.
> > +	 */
> > +	for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, ac->zonelist, ac->high_zoneidx,
> > +					ac->nodemask) {
> > +		unsigned long available;
> > +		enum compact_result compact_result;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Do not consider all the reclaimable memory because we do not
> > +		 * want to trash just for a single high order allocation which
> > +		 * is even not guaranteed to appear even if __compaction_suitable
> > +		 * is happy about the watermark check.
> > +		 */
> > +		available = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) / order;
> 
> I can't understand why '/ order' is needed here. Think about specific
> example.
> 
> zone_reclaimable_pages = 100 MB
> NR_FREE_PAGES = 20 MB
> watermark = 40 MB
> order = 10
> 
> I think that compaction should run in this situation and your logic
> doesn't. We should be conservative when guessing not to do something
> prematurely.

I do not mind changing this. But pushing really hard on reclaim for
order-10 pages doesn't sound like a good idea. So we should somehow
reduce the target. I am open for any better suggestions.

> > +		available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> > +		compact_result = __compaction_suitable(zone, order, alloc_flags,
> > +				ac->classzone_idx, available);
> 
> It misses tracepoint in compaction_suitable().

Why do you think the check would be useful. I have considered it more
confusing than halpful to I have intentionally not added it.

> 
> > +		if (compact_result != COMPACT_SKIPPED &&
> > +				compact_result != COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE)
> 
> It's undesirable to use COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE here. It is just for
> detailed tracepoint output.

Well this is a compaction code so I considered it acceptable. If you
consider it a big deal I can extract a wrapper and hide this detail.

[...]

> > @@ -3040,9 +3040,11 @@ should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result compact_result,
> >  	/*
> >  	 * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
> >  	 * due to locks contention before we declare that we should give up.
> > +	 * But do not retry if the given zonelist is not suitable for
> > +	 * compaction.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (compaction_withdrawn(compact_result))
> > -		return true;
> > +		return compaction_zonelist_suitable(ac, order, alloc_flags);
> 
> I think that compaction_zonelist_suitable() should be checked first.
> If compaction_zonelist_suitable() returns false, it's useless to
> retry since it means that compaction cannot run if all reclaimable
> pages are reclaimed. Logic should be as following.
> 
> if (!compaction_zonelist_suitable())
>         return false;
> 
> if (compaction_withdrawn())
>         return true;

That is certainly an option as well. The logic above is that I really
wanted to have a terminal condition when compaction can return
compaction_withdrawn for ever basically. Normally we are bound by a
number of successful reclaim rounds. Before we go an change there I
would like to see where it makes real change though.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-04  9:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-20 19:47 [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6 Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 01/14] vmscan: consider classzone_idx in compaction_ready Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  3:32   ` Hillf Danton
2016-05-04 13:56   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 02/14] mm, compaction: change COMPACT_ constants into enum Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 03/14] mm, compaction: cover all compaction mode in compact_zone Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 04/14] mm, compaction: distinguish COMPACT_DEFERRED from COMPACT_SKIPPED Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  7:08   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 05/14] mm, compaction: distinguish between full and partial COMPACT_COMPLETE Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:39   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 06/14] mm, compaction: Update compaction_result ordering Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:45   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 07/14] mm, compaction: Simplify __alloc_pages_direct_compact feedback interface Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:50   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 08/14] mm, compaction: Abstract compaction feedback to helpers Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:57   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:47   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 09/14] mm: use compaction feedback for thp backoff conditions Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  7:05   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:53   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-28 12:35     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-29  9:16       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-29  9:28         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 10/14] mm, oom: rework oom detection Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 11/14] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty and writeback pages Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:03   ` Hillf Danton
2016-05-04  6:01   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  6:31     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  8:56       ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:57         ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:19           ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  8:53     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:39       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:20         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 13/14] mm: consider compaction feedback also for costly allocation Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:13   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 14/14] mm, oom, compaction: prevent from should_compact_retry looping for ever for costly orders Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:24   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:59   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-28 12:39     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  6:27   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  9:04     ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-05-04 15:14       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 19:22         ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  5:45 ` [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6 Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  8:12   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-04  8:32     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  8:50     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  8:47   ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:32     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:16       ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10  6:41         ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-10  7:09           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-10  8:00             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-10  9:44               ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10  9:43           ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-12  2:23             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-12  5:19               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-12 10:59               ` Michal Hocko

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=20160504090448.GF29978@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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