From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:44:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190710194403.GR29695@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com>
On Wed 10-07-19 11:42:40, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> As Michal suggested, I'm going to do some testing to see what impact
> dropping the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag for these huge page allocations
> will have on the number of pages allocated.
Just to clarify. I didn't mean to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL from the
allocation request. I meant to drop the special casing of the flag in
should_continue_reclaim. I really have hard time to argue for this
special casing TBH. The flag is meant to retry harder but that shouldn't
be reduced to a single reclaim attempt because that alone doesn't really
help much with the high order allocation. It is more about compaction to
be retried harder.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-10 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 4:07 Mike Kravetz
2019-04-23 7:19 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-23 16:39 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-04-24 14:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-06-28 18:20 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-01 8:59 ` Mel Gorman
2019-07-02 3:15 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-03 9:43 ` Mel Gorman
2019-07-03 23:54 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-04 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-04 15:11 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-08 5:19 ` Hillf Danton
2019-07-10 18:42 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-10 19:44 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-07-10 23:36 ` Mike Kravetz
2019-07-11 7:12 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-12 9:49 ` Mel Gorman
2019-07-11 15:44 Hillf Danton
2019-07-12 5:47 Hillf Danton
2019-07-13 1:11 ` Mike Kravetz
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=20190710194403.GR29695@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.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