[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9194950c-06b5-31d7-de17-1f8710dd5682@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:55:23 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions
On 09/23/2016 10:26 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> include/linux/compaction.h | 5 +++--
>> mm/compaction.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> mm/internal.h | 1 +
>> mm/vmscan.c | 6 ++++--
>> 4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> This is much more code churn than I expected. I was thiking about it
> some more and I am really wondering whether it actually make any sense
> to check the fragidx for !costly orders. Wouldn't it be much simpler to
> just put it out of the way for those regardless of the compaction
> priority. In other words does this check makes any measurable difference
> for !costly orders?
I've did some stress tests and sampling
/sys/kernel/debug/extfrag/extfrag_index once per second. The lowest
value I've got for order-2 was 0.705. The default threshold is 0.5, so
this would still result in compaction considered as suitable.
But it's sampling so I might not got to the interesting moments, most of
the time it was -1.000 which means the page should be just available.
Also we would be changing behavior for the user-controlled
vm.extfrag_threshold, so I'm not entirely sure about that.
I could probably reduce the churn so that compaction_suitable() doesn't
need a new parameter. We could just skip compaction_suitable() check
from compact_zone() on the highest priority, and go on even without
sufficient free page gap?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists