linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:07:37 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160816060737.GC17448@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160810091226.6709-7-vbabka@suse.cz>

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:12:21AM +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 a lower priority due to parallel activity, so we might needlessly
> struggle on the lower priorities and possibly run out of compaction retry
> attempts in the process.
> 
> After this patch we are guaranteed at least one attempt at the highest
> compaction priority even if we exhaust all retries at the lower priorities.

The only difference that this patch makes is increasing priority when
COMPACT_PARTIAL(COMPACTION_SUCCESS) returns. In that case, we can
usually allocate high-order freepage so we would not enter here. Am I
missing something? Is it really needed behaviour change?

Thanks.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index fb975cec3518..b28517b918b0 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3155,13 +3155,8 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  	 * so it doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
>  	 * failure could be caused by insufficient priority
>  	 */
> -	if (compaction_failed(compact_result)) {
> -		if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
> -			(*compact_priority)--;
> -			return true;
> -		}
> -		return false;
> -	}
> +	if (compaction_failed(compact_result))
> +		goto check_priority;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
> @@ -3185,6 +3180,15 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>  	if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
>  		return true;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure there is at least one attempt at the highest priority
> +	 * if we exhausted all retries at the lower priorities
> +	 */
> +check_priority:
> +	if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
> +		(*compact_priority)--;
> +		return true;
> +	}
>  	return false;

The only difference that this patch makes is increasing priority when
COMPACT_PARTIAL(COMPACTION_SUCCESS) returns. In that case, we can
usually allocate high-order freepage so we would not enter here. Am I
missing something? Is it really needed behaviour change?

Thanks.

--
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:[~2016-08-16  6:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-10  9:12 [PATCH v6 00/11] make direct compaction more deterministic Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 01/11] mm, compaction: make whole_zone flag ignore cached scanner positions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 02/11] mm, compaction: cleanup unused functions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 03/11] mm, compaction: rename COMPACT_PARTIAL to COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18  9:01   ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 04/11] mm, compaction: don't recheck watermarks after COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:12   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16  6:11     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 11:59     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18  9:03   ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 05/11] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  5:58   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:23     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase " Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:07   ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2016-08-16  6:31     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18  9:10   ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-18  9:44     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18  9:48       ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 07/11] mm, compaction: use correct watermark when checking compaction success Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 08/11] mm, compaction: create compact_gap wrapper Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:15   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16  6:15     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:41       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:13         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 09/11] mm, compaction: use proper alloc_flags in __compaction_suitable() Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 10/11] mm, compaction: require only min watermarks for non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:16   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16  6:36     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16  6:46       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:20         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10  9:12 ` [PATCH v6 11/11] mm, vmscan: make compaction_ready() more accurate and readable Vlastimil Babka

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=20160816060737.GC17448@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE \
    --to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --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