[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100324135347.7a9eb37b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:53:47 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone after a
compaction failure
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:25:46 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> The fragmentation index may indicate that a failure it due to external
> fragmentation, a compaction run complete and an allocation failure still
> fail. There are two obvious reasons as to why
>
> o Page migration cannot move all pages so fragmentation remains
> o A suitable page may exist but watermarks are not met
>
> In the event of compaction and allocation failure, this patch prevents
> compaction happening for a short interval. It's only recorded on the
> preferred zone but that should be enough coverage. This could have been
> implemented similar to the zonelist_cache but the increased size of the
> zonelist did not appear to be justified.
>
>
> ...
>
> +/* defer_compaction - Do not compact within a zone until a given time */
> +static inline void defer_compaction(struct zone *zone, unsigned long resume)
> +{
> + /*
> + * This function is called when compaction fails to result in a page
> + * allocation success. This is somewhat unsatisfactory as the failure
> + * to compact has nothing to do with time and everything to do with
> + * the requested order, the number of free pages and watermarks. How
> + * to wait on that is more unclear, but the answer would apply to
> + * other areas where the VM waits based on time.
um. "Two wrongs don't make a right". We should fix the other sites,
not use them as excuses ;)
What _is_ a good measure of "time" in this code? "number of pages
scanned" is a pretty good one in reclaim. We want something which will
adapt itself to amount-of-memory, number-of-cpus, speed-of-cpus,
nature-of-workload, etc, etc.
Is it possible to come up with some simple metric which approximately
reflects how busy this code is, then pace ourselves via that?
> + */
> + zone->compact_resume = resume;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int compaction_deferred(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> + /* init once if necessary */
> + if (unlikely(!zone->compact_resume)) {
> + zone->compact_resume = jiffies;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return time_before(jiffies, zone->compact_resume);
> +}
--
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