From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008026B788A for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 07:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id z30-v6so3566969edd.19 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 04:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o35-v6si944655edo.114.2018.09.06.04.25.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Sep 2018 04:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:25:46 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, thp: relax __GFP_THISNODE for MADV_HUGEPAGE mappings Message-ID: <20180906112546.GP14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180830070021.GB2656@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4AFDF557-46E3-4C62-8A43-C28E8F2A54CF@cs.rutgers.edu> <20180830134549.GI2656@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180830164057.GK2656@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180905034403.GN4762@redhat.com> <20180905070803.GZ14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <99ee1104-9258-e801-2ba3-a643892cc6c1@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Zi Yan , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Alex Williamson , David Rientjes , Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG On Thu 06-09-18 13:16:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 09/06/2018 01:10 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> We can and should think about this much more but I would like to have > >> this regression closed. So can we address GFP_THISNODE part first and > >> build more complex solution on top? > >> > >> Is there any objection to my patch which does the similar thing to your > >> patch v2 in a different location? > > > > Similar but not the same. It fixes the madvise case, but I wonder about > > the no-madvise defrag=defer case, where Zi Yan reports it still causes > > swapping. > > Ah, but that should be the same with Andrea's variant 2) patch. There > should only be difference with defrag=always, which is direct reclaim > with __GFP_NORETRY, Andrea's patch would drop __GFP_THISNODE and your > not. Maybe Zi Yan can do the same kind of tests with Andrea's patch [1] > to confirm? Yes, that is the only difference and that is why I've said those patches are mostly similar. I do not want to touch defrag=always case because this one has always been stall prone and we have replaced it as a default just because of that. We should discuss what should be done with that case separately IMHO. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs