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: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:25:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a309d46-4fbc-f86e-5f21-b77660e84ff5@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba737e36-ef83-8254-aff1-1a46a9029fff@huaweicloud.com>
On 8/22/2023 9:57 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 8/19/2023 8:27 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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?
> Sorry, I can't quite follow this. The watermark should differ with different
> alloc_flags instead of WMARK_MIN hard-coded.
> Patch 8 and patch 9 use watermark with WMARK_MIN as they get alloc_flags = 0.
I mean you can pass 'alloc_flags=ALLOC_WMARK_MIN' instead of a magic
number 0 when calling compaction_suit_allocation_order() in patch 8 and
patch 9.
>> And I think patch 8 and patch 9 should be squashed into patch 7 to convert all at once.
> Sure, i could do this in next version.
>>
>>>>> + 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;
>>>>> }
>>>>> /*
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-24 2:25 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
2023-08-22 1:57 ` Kemeng Shi
2023-08-24 2:25 ` Baolin Wang [this message]
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=7a309d46-4fbc-f86e-5f21-b77660e84ff5@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