From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:09:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160923120958.GM4478@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9194950c-06b5-31d7-de17-1f8710dd5682@suse.cz>
On Fri 23-09-16 12:55:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
> >> mm/compaction.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >> mm/internal.h | 1 +
> >> mm/vmscan.c | 6 ++++--
> >> 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > This is much more code churn than I expected. I was thiking about it
> > some more and I am really wondering whether it actually make any sense
> > to check the fragidx for !costly orders. Wouldn't it be much simpler to
> > just put it out of the way for those regardless of the compaction
> > priority. In other words does this check makes any measurable difference
> > for !costly orders?
>
> I've did some stress tests and sampling
> /sys/kernel/debug/extfrag/extfrag_index once per second. The lowest
> value I've got for order-2 was 0.705. The default threshold is 0.5, so
> this would still result in compaction considered as suitable.
>
> But it's sampling so I might not got to the interesting moments, most of
> the time it was -1.000 which means the page should be just available.
> Also we would be changing behavior for the user-controlled
> vm.extfrag_threshold, so I'm not entirely sure about that.
Does anybody depend on that or even use it out there? I strongly suspect
this is one of those dark corners people even do not know they exist...
> I could probably reduce the churn so that compaction_suitable() doesn't
> need a new parameter. We could just skip compaction_suitable() check
> from compact_zone() on the highest priority, and go on even without
> sufficient free page gap?
Whatever makes the code easier to understand. Please do not take me
wrong I do not want to push back on this too hard I just always love to
get rid of an obscure heuristic which even might not matter. And as your
testing suggests this might really be the case for !costly orders AFAIU.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-23 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-06 13:52 Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request" Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 12:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:08 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 4:04 ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23 6:55 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:06 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: restrict full priority to non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction: make full priority ignore pageblock suitability Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-15 18:51 ` [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-21 17:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 15:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 8:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:55 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:09 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=20160923120958.GM4478@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
--cc=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--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