[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANFwon2a2oRXaSUi3uXJwg=4T0p2yaWcGdo8SgYp+u_Ypitmvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:46:23 +0800
From: Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
Cc: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>, Hui Zhu <zhuhui@...omi.com>,
rjw@...ysocki.net, len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mina86@...a86.com,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, mgorman@...e.de,
minchan@...nel.org, nasa4836@...il.com, ddstreet@...e.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
keescook@...omium.org, atomlin@...hat.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
axboe@...com, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
k.khlebnikov@...sung.com, msalter@...hat.com, deller@....de,
tangchen@...fujitsu.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
akinobu.mita@...il.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
vdavydov@...allels.com, suleiman@...gle.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (CMA_AGGRESSIVE) Make CMA memory be more aggressive
about allocation
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 10:55 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/2014 8:35 PM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> It's good to see another proposal to fix CMA utilization. Do you have
>> any data about the success rate of CMA contiguous allocation after
>> this patch series? I played around with a similar approach of using
>> CMA for MIGRATE_MOVABLE allocations and found that although utilization
>> did increase, contiguous allocations failed at a higher rate and were
>> much slower. I see what this series is trying to do with avoiding
>> allocation from CMA pages when a contiguous allocation is progress.
>> My concern is that there would still be problems with contiguous
>> allocation after all the MIGRATE_MOVABLE fallback has happened.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> did anyone try/suggest the following idea?
>
> - keep CMA as fallback to MOVABLE as is is now, i.e. non-agressive
> - when UNMOVABLE (RECLAIMABLE also?) allocation fails and CMA pageblocks
> have space, don't OOM immediately, but first try to migrate some MOVABLE
> pages to CMA pageblocks, to make space for the UNMOVABLE allocation in
> non-CMA pageblocks
> - this should keep CMA pageblocks free as long as possible and useful for
> CMA allocations, but without restricting the non-MOVABLE allocations even
> though there is free memory (but in CMA pageblocks)
> - the fact that a MOVABLE page could be successfully migrated to CMA
> pageblock, means it was not pinned or otherwise non-migratable, so there's a
> good chance it can be migrated back again if CMA pageblocks need to be used
> by CMA allocation
> - it's more complex, but I guess we have most of the necessary
> infrastructure in compaction already :)
I think this idea make CMA allocation part become complex but make
balance and shrink code become easy because it make CMA become real
memory.
I just worry about the speed of migrate memory with this idea. :)
Thanks,
Hui
>
> Thoughts?
> Vlastimil
>
>> Thanks,
>> Laura
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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