Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:03:56 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kenchen@...gle.com,
	jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, apw@...dowen.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com, clameter@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:20:43AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 
> >  Mel's page allocator work.  Might merge this, but I'm still not hearing
> >  sufficiently convincing noises from a sufficient number of people over this.
> > 
> 
> This is a long on-going story. It bounces between people who say it's not a
> complete solution and everything should have the 100% ability to defragment
> and the people on the other side that say it goes a long way to solving their
> problem. I've cc'd some of the parties that have expressed any interest in
> the last year.

And I guess some other people who want to see what prolbems there are
and what can't be solved between order-0 allocations and reserve zones.

 
> On a slightly more left of centre tact, these patches *may* help fsblock with
> large blocks although I would like to hear Nick's confirming/denying this.
> Currently if fsblock wants to work with large blocks, it uses a vmap to map
> discontiguous pages so they are virtually contiguous for the filesystem. The
> use of VMAP is never cheap, though how much of an overhead in this case is
> unknown.  If these patches were in place, fsblock could optimisically allocate
> the higher-order page and use it without vmap if it succeeded. If it fails,
> it would use vmap as a lower-performance-but-still-works fallback. This
> may tie in better with what Christoph is doing with large blocks as well
> as it may be a compromise solution between their proposals - I'm not 100%
> sure so he's cc'd as well for comment.

Yeah higher order allocations could definitely be helpful for this although
I couldn't guess at the sort of impovements at this stage. And I mean if
there was a simple choice between better (but still not perfect) support
for higher order allocations or not, then of course you would take them.
I am sure there are other places as well where they might makes life a bit
easier or performance a bit better.

But given the code involved, it is not just a simple choice, but a
tradeoff. Perhaps I haven't seen or don't realise it, but I'm still not
sure that this tradeoff is a good one. (just my opinion).


> The patches have been reviewed heavily recently by Christoph and Andy has
> looked through them as well. They've been tested for a long time in -mm so
> I would expect they not regress functionality. I've maintained that having
> the 100% ability to defragment will cost too much in terms of performance
> and would be blocked by the fact that the device driver model would have to
> be updated to never use physical addresses - a massive undertaking. I think
> this approach is more pragmatic and working on making more types of memory
> (like page tables) migratable is at least piecemeal as opposed to turning
> everything on it's head.

My comments about defragmentation of the kernel were not exactly what
I believe is the right direction to go (it may be, but I'm rally not
in a position to know without having seen or tried to implement it). But
I do think that's what would really be needed in order to really support
higher order allocations the same as order-0.

I realise in your pragmatic approach, you are encouraging users to
put fallbacks in place in case a higher order page cannot be allocated,
but I don't think either higher order pagecache or higher order slubs
have such fallbacks (fsblock or a combination of fsblock and higher
order pagecache could have, but...).
 
> >  These are slub changes which are dependent on Mel's stuff, and I have a note
> >  here that there were reports of page allocation failures with these.  What's
> >  up with that?
> > 
> 
> These is where the
> have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch and
> only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocations.patch
> patches should be. There were page allocation failure reports without these
> patches but Nick felt they were not the correct solution and I tend to agree
> with him on this matter. I haven't put a massive amount of thought into it
> yet because without grouping pages by mobility, the question is pointless.

Yeah I think that was a hack.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists