Re: [PATCH] mm: clarify COMPACTION Kconfig text

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > I don't believe it has been an issue in the past for any archs that
> > don't use thp.
> 
> Well, fragmentation is a real problem and order-0 reclaim will be never
> anywhere close to reliably provide higher order pages. Well, reclaiming
> a lot of memory can increase the probability of a success but that
> can quite often lead to over reclaim and long stalls. There are other
> sources of high order requests than THP so this is not about THP at all
> IMHO.
> 

Would it be possible to list the high-order allocations you are concerned 
about other than thp that doesn't have fallback behavior like skbuff and 
slub allocations?  struct task_struct is an order-1 allocation and there 
may be order-1 slab bucket usage, but what is higher order or requires 
aggressive compaction to allocate?  Surely you're not suggesting that 
order-0 reclaim cannot form order-1 memory.  I am concerned about kernels 
that require a small memory footprint and cannot enable all of 
CONFIG_COMPACTION and CONFIG_MIGRATION.  Embedded devices are not a 
negligible minority of kernels.

> > , CONFIG_MIGRATION.  Migration has a 
> > dependency of NUMA or memory hot-remove (not all popular).  Compaction can 
> > defragment memory within single zone without reliance on NUMA.
> 
> I am not sure I am following you here.
> MIGRATION depends on (NUMA || ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE || COMPACTION || CMA) && MMU
>  

Embedded device may be UMA and not care for memory hotplug or failure 
handling and rely solely on order-0 and order-1 memory.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>