[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5506ACEC.9010403@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:14:04 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] Allow compaction of unevictable pages
[CC += linux-api@]
Since this is a kernel-user-space API change, please CC linux-api@.
The kernel source file Documentation/SubmitChecklist notes that all
Linux kernel patches that change userspace interfaces should be CCed
to linux-api@...r.kernel.org, so that the various parties who are
interested in API changes are informed. For further information, see
https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/linux-api-ml.html
On 03/13/2015 09:19 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-03-15 15:09:15, Eric B Munson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/13/2015 01:26 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>>>> @@ -1046,6 +1046,8 @@ typedef enum {
>>>> ISOLATE_SUCCESS, /* Pages isolated, migrate */
>>>> } isolate_migrate_t;
>>>>
>>>> +int sysctl_compact_unevictable;
A comment here would be useful I think, as well as explicit default
value. Maybe also __read_mostly although I don't know how much that matters.
I also wonder if it might be confusing that "compact_memory" is a
write-only trigger that doesn't even show under "sysctl -a", while
"compact_unevictable" is a read/write setting. But I don't have a better
suggestion right now.
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * Isolate all pages that can be migrated from the first suitable block,
>>>> * starting at the block pointed to by the migrate scanner pfn within
>>>
>>> I suspect that the use cases where users absolutely do not want
>>> unevictable pages migrated are special cases, and it may make
>>> sense to enable sysctl_compact_unevictable by default.
>>
>> Given that sysctl_compact_unevictable=0 is the way the kernel behaves
>> now and the push back against always enabling compaction on unevictable
>> pages, I left the default to be the behavior as it is today.
>
> The question is _why_ we have this behavior now. Is it intentional?
It's there since 748446bb6 ("mm: compaction: memory compaction core").
Commit c53919adc0 ("mm: vmscan: remove lumpy reclaim") changes the
comment in __isolate_lru_page() handling of unevictable pages to mention
compaction explicitly. It could have been accidental in 748446bb6
though, maybe it just reused __isolate_lru_page() for compaction - it
seems that the skipping of unevictable was initially meant to optimize
lumpy reclaim.
> e46a28790e59 (CMA: migrate mlocked pages) is a precedence in that
Well, CMA and realtime kernels are probably mutually exclusive enough.
> direction. Vlastimil has then changed that by edc2ca612496 (mm,
> compaction: move pageblock checks up from isolate_migratepages_range()).
> There is no mention about mlock pages so I guess it was more an
> unintentional side effect of the patch. At least that is my current
> understanding. I might be wrong here.
Although that commit did change unintentionally more details that I
would have liked (unfortunately), I think you are wrong on this one.
ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE is still passed from isolate_migratepages_range()
which is used by CMA, while the compaction variant
isolate_migratepages() does not pass it. So it's kept CMA-specific as
before.
> The thing about RT is that it is not usable with the upstream kernel
> without the RT patchset AFAIU. So the default should be reflect what is
> better for the standard kernel. RT loads have to tune the system anyway
> so it is not so surprising they would disable this option as well. We
> should help those guys and do not require them to touch the code but the
> knob is reasonable IMHO.
>
> Especially when your changelog suggests that having this enabled by
> default is beneficial for the standard kernel.
I agree, but if there's a danger of becoming too of a bikeshed topic,
I'm fine with keeping the default same as current behavior and changing
it later. Or maybe we should ask some -rt mailing list instead of just
Peter and Thomas?
--
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