From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] mm: compaction: simplify should_compact_retry()
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 14:39:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230519123959.77335-3-hannes@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230519123959.77335-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
The different branches for retry are unnecessarily complicated. There
are really only three outcomes: progress (retry n times), skipped
(retry if reclaim can help), failed (retry with higher priority).
Rearrange the branches and the retry counter to make it simpler.
v2:
- fix trace point build (Mel)
- fix max_retries logic for costly allocs (Huang)
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 53 +++++++++++++++----------------------------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 5a84a0bebc37..72660e924b95 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3772,16 +3772,22 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
* Compaction managed to coalesce some page blocks, but the
* allocation failed presumably due to a race. Retry some.
*/
- if (compact_result == COMPACT_SUCCESS)
- (*compaction_retries)++;
+ if (compact_result == COMPACT_SUCCESS) {
+ /*
+ * !costly requests are much more important than
+ * __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL costly ones because they are de
+ * facto nofail and invoke OOM killer to move on while
+ * costly can fail and users are ready to cope with
+ * that. 1/4 retries is rather arbitrary but we would
+ * need much more detailed feedback from compaction to
+ * make a better decision.
+ */
+ if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+ max_retries /= 4;
- /*
- * All zones were scanned completely and still no result. It
- * doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
- * failure could be caused by insufficient priority
- */
- if (compact_result == COMPACT_COMPLETE)
- goto check_priority;
+ ret = ++(*compaction_retries) <= max_retries;
+ goto out;
+ }
/*
* Compaction was skipped due to a lack of free order-0
@@ -3793,35 +3799,8 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
}
/*
- * If compaction backed due to being deferred, due to
- * contended locks in async mode, or due to scanners meeting
- * after a partial scan, retry with increased priority.
- */
- if (compact_result == COMPACT_DEFERRED ||
- compact_result == COMPACT_CONTENDED ||
- compact_result == COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED)
- goto check_priority;
-
- /*
- * !costly requests are much more important than __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
- * costly ones because they are de facto nofail and invoke OOM
- * killer to move on while costly can fail and users are ready
- * to cope with that. 1/4 retries is rather arbitrary but we
- * would need much more detailed feedback from compaction to
- * make a better decision.
- */
- if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
- max_retries /= 4;
- if (*compaction_retries <= max_retries) {
- ret = true;
- goto out;
- }
-
- /*
- * Make sure there are attempts at the highest priority if we exhausted
- * all retries or failed at the lower priorities.
+ * Compaction failed. Retry with increasing priority.
*/
-check_priority:
min_priority = (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) ?
MIN_COMPACT_COSTLY_PRIORITY : MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY;
--
2.40.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-19 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-19 12:39 [PATCH 0/5] mm: compaction: cleanups & simplifications Johannes Weiner
2023-05-19 12:39 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: compaction: remove compaction result helpers Johannes Weiner
2023-05-29 9:58 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-19 12:39 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2023-05-29 13:03 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: compaction: simplify should_compact_retry() Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-29 16:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-05-19 12:39 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: compaction: refactor __compaction_suitable() Johannes Weiner
2023-05-29 17:11 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-19 12:39 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: compaction: remove unnecessary is_via_compact_memory() checks Johannes Weiner
2023-05-29 17:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-19 12:39 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: compaction: drop redundant watermark check in compaction_zonelist_suitable() Johannes Weiner
2023-05-29 17:12 ` 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=20230519123959.77335-3-hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.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