linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] mm/compaction: factor out code to test if we should run compaction for target order
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:27:54 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3aefc27b-f7b8-6832-964d-77a55ea304fc@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <631d62de-c9b5-3c5f-e0b3-df0109627a27@huaweicloud.com>



On 8/15/2023 8:10 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> on 8/15/2023 4:53 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>> We always do zone_watermark_ok check and compaction_suitable check
>>> together to test if compaction for target order should be runned.
>>> Factor these code out for preparation to remove repeat code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/compaction.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>    1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>>> index b5a699ed526b..26787ebb0297 100644
>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>>> @@ -2365,6 +2365,30 @@ bool compaction_zonelist_suitable(struct alloc_context *ac, int order,
>>>        return false;
>>>    }
>>>    +/*
>>> + * Should we do compaction for target allocation order.
>>> + * Return COMPACT_SUCCESS if allocation for target order can be already
>>> + * satisfied
>>> + * Return COMPACT_SKIPPED if compaction for target order is likely to fail
>>> + * Return COMPACT_CONTINUE if compaction for target order should be runned
>>> + */
>>> +static inline enum compact_result
>>> +compaction_suit_allocation_order(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
>>> +                 int highest_zoneidx, unsigned int alloc_flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned long watermark;
>>> +
>>> +    watermark = wmark_pages(zone, alloc_flags & ALLOC_WMARK_MASK);
>>
>> IIUC, the watermark used in patch 8 and patch 9 is different, right? Have you measured the impact of modifying this watermark?
>>
> Actually, there is no functional change intended. Consider wmark_pages with
> alloc_flags = 0 is equivalent to min_wmark_pages, patch 8 and patch 9 still
> use original watermark.

Can you use ALLOC_WMARK_MIN macro to make it more clear?

And I think patch 8 and patch 9 should be squashed into patch 7 to 
convert all at once.

>>> +    if (zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, watermark, highest_zoneidx,
>>> +                  alloc_flags))
>>> +        return COMPACT_SUCCESS;
>>> +
>>> +    if (!compaction_suitable(zone, order, highest_zoneidx))
>>> +        return COMPACT_SKIPPED;
>>> +
>>> +    return COMPACT_CONTINUE;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>    static enum compact_result
>>>    compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc)
>>>    {
>>> @@ -2390,19 +2414,11 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc)
>>>        cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask);
>>>          if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) {
>>> -        unsigned long watermark;
>>> -
>>> -        /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */
>>> -        watermark = wmark_pages(cc->zone,
>>> -                    cc->alloc_flags & ALLOC_WMARK_MASK);
>>> -        if (zone_watermark_ok(cc->zone, cc->order, watermark,
>>> -                      cc->highest_zoneidx, cc->alloc_flags))
>>> -            return COMPACT_SUCCESS;
>>> -
>>> -        /* Compaction is likely to fail */
>>> -        if (!compaction_suitable(cc->zone, cc->order,
>>> -                     cc->highest_zoneidx))
>>> -            return COMPACT_SKIPPED;
>>> +        ret = compaction_suit_allocation_order(cc->zone, cc->order,
>>> +                               cc->highest_zoneidx,
>>> +                               cc->alloc_flags);
>>> +        if (ret != COMPACT_CONTINUE)
>>> +            return ret;
>>>        }
>>>          /*
>>
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-19 12:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-05 11:07 [PATCH 0/9] Fixes and cleanups to compaction Kemeng Shi
2023-08-05  3:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-08-05  4:07   ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-05 11:07 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm/compaction: call list_is_{first}/{last} more intuitively in move_freelist_{head}/{tail} Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15  7:49   ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-05 11:07 ` [PATCH 5/9] mm/compaction: remove repeat compact_blockskip_flush check in reset_isolation_suitable Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15  8:42   ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-05 11:07 ` [PATCH 6/9] mm/compaction: rename is_via_compact_memory to compaction_with_allocation_order Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15  8:58   ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-15 12:04     ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-19 12:14       ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-22  1:51         ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-24  2:20           ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-05 11:07 ` [PATCH 7/9] mm/compaction: factor out code to test if we should run compaction for target order Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15  8:53   ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-15 12:10     ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-19 12:27       ` Baolin Wang [this message]
2023-08-22  1:57         ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-24  2:25           ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-24  2:59             ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-05 11:07 ` [PATCH 9/9] mm/compaction: call compaction_suit_allocation_order in kcompactd_do_work Kemeng Shi
     [not found] ` <20230805110711.2975149-2-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
2023-08-05 17:11   ` [PATCH 1/9] mm/compaction: use correct list in move_freelist_{head}/{tail} Andrew Morton
2023-08-07  0:37     ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15  7:16   ` Baolin Wang
     [not found] ` <20230805110711.2975149-4-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
2023-08-15  8:28   ` [PATCH 3/9] mm/compaction: correctly return failure with bogus compound_order in strict mode Baolin Wang
2023-08-15  9:22     ` Kemeng Shi
     [not found] ` <20230805110711.2975149-5-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
2023-08-15  8:38   ` [PATCH 4/9] mm/compaction: simplify pfn iteration in isolate_freepages_range Baolin Wang
2023-08-15  9:32     ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-15 10:07       ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-15 10:37         ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-19 11:58           ` Baolin Wang
2023-08-22  1:37             ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-24  2:19               ` Baolin Wang

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=3aefc27b-f7b8-6832-964d-77a55ea304fc@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
    /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