[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:26:28 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
On Thu 03-03-16 16:50:16, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 03:10 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>>>> At least, reset no_progress_loops when did_some_progress. High
> >>>>> order allocation up to PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER is as important
> >>>>> as order 0. And, reclaim something would increase probability of
> >>>>> compaction success.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is something I still do not understand. Why would reclaiming
> >>>> random order-0 pages help compaction? Could you clarify this please?
> >>>
> >>> I just can tell simple version. Please check the link from me on another reply.
> >>> Compaction could scan more range of memory if we have more freepage.
> >>> This is due to algorithm limitation. Anyway, so, reclaiming random
> >>> order-0 pages helps compaction.
> >>
> >> I will have a look at that code but this just doesn't make any sense.
> >> The compaction should be reshuffling pages, this shouldn't be a function
> >> of free memory.
> >
> > Please refer the link I mentioned before. There is a reason why more free
> > memory would help compaction success. Compaction doesn't work
> > like as random reshuffling. It has an algorithm to reduce system overall
> > fragmentation so there is limitation.
>
> I proposed another way to get better results from direct compaction -
> don't scan for free pages but get them directly from freelists:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/3/60
Yes this makes perfect sense to me (with my limited experience in
this area so I might be missing some obvious problems this would
introduce). The direct compaction for !costly orders is something
we should better satisfy immediately. I would just object that this
shouldn't be reduced to ASYNC compaction requests only. SYNC* modes are
even a more desperate call (at least that is my understanding) for the
page and we should treat them the appropriately.
> But your redesign would be useful too for kcompactd/khugepaged keeping
> overall fragmentation low.
kcompactd can handle and should focus on the long term goals.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists