From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f72.google.com (mail-wm0-f72.google.com [74.125.82.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98E46B0275 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id b130so74420653wmc.2 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n123si2954504wmg.32.2016.09.22.08.18.53 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions References: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20160921171830.GH24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <56f2c2ed-8a58-cf9c-dd00-c0d0e274607a@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:18:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160921171830.GH24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Ralf-Peter Rohbeck , Olaf Hering , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel On 09/21/2016 07:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has > always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that > makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe side I would > preffer to have _all_ the shortcuts out of the way in the highest > priority. It is true that this will cause COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE > so keep retrying but still a complication to understand the workflow. > > What do you think? I was thinking that this shouldn't be a problem on non-costly orders and default extfrag_threshold. But better be safe. Moreover I think the issue is much more dangerous for compact_zonelist_suitable() as explained below. ----8<----