From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF76C47255 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D485C206F5 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:11:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uPubk21j" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D485C206F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 558E490007F; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 50929900036; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:11:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 41FD590007F; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:11:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0094.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.94]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2976D900036 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 16:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7692498 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:11:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76805534274.21.nerve92_8583fa6a13d41 X-HE-Tag: nerve92_8583fa6a13d41 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2617 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf35.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59BD3206F5; Mon, 11 May 2020 20:11:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589227916; bh=BAT96320Mf+ek7q+6TUr2heEI1ld3mlQvzBygXm4ikE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uPubk21j63Zr9AqxVjUUQOVQXFKVjWUSWJfHwi1uxn3D00X6uBTsfwvupX7tc3PMl RTEdBA+0n4PZyJFKM9NPrKn4/wD6EqvnI91oTc2wka/nk7nEpQ024X7GzYEtSWHBXu 3xtLDutwV9/Oo3DqaGdV/W7ryzxKHu+R4Yb6cz8A= Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:11:55 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Charan Teja Reddy Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vinmenon@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: reset the zone->watermark_boost early Message-Id: <20200511131155.0b40ee443c3367e8f748b16f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1589204408-5152-1-git-send-email-charante@codeaurora.org> References: <1589204408-5152-1-git-send-email-charante@codeaurora.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 11 May 2020 19:10:08 +0530 Charan Teja Reddy wrote: > Updating the zone watermarks by any means, like extra_free_kbytes, > min_free_kbytes, water_mark_scale_factor e.t.c, when watermark_boost is > set will result into the higher low and high watermarks than the user > asks. This can be avoided by resetting the zone->watermark_boost to zero > early. Does this solve some problem which has been observed in testing? > ... > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -7746,9 +7746,9 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void) > mult_frac(zone_managed_pages(zone), > watermark_scale_factor, 10000)); > > + zone->watermark_boost = 0; > zone->_watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + tmp; > zone->_watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + tmp * 2; > - zone->watermark_boost = 0; > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags); > } This could only be a problem if code is accessing these things without holding zone->lock. Is that ever the case?