linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: compaction: simplify should_compact_retry()
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 12:38:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230529163805.GA84971@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c3c9305-a678-279e-f015-7aed544ab3c8@suse.cz>

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 03:03:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/19/23 14:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > 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;
> 
> I think you simplified this part too much, so now once it runs out of
> retries, it will return false, while previously it would increase the priority.

Oops, I'll send a delta fix to Andrew tomorrow. Thanks!


  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-29 16:38 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 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: compaction: simplify should_compact_retry() Johannes Weiner
2023-05-29 13:03   ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-05-29 16:38     ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
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=20230529163805.GA84971@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