[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <557A0949.3020705@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:18:49 -0400
From: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <Kernel-team@...com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: use atomic allocation for order-3 page allocation
On 06/11/2015 05:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 17:16 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 04:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> networking is asking for 32KB, and the MM layer is doing what it can to
>> provide it. Are the gains from getting 32KB contig bigger than the cost
>> of moving pages around if the MM has to actually go into compaction?
>> Should we start disk IO to give back 32KB contig?
>>
>> I think we want to tell the MM to compact in the background and give
>> networking 32KB if it happens to have it available. If not, fall back
>> to smaller allocations without doing anything expensive.
>
> Exactly my point. (And I mentioned this about 4 months ago)
Sorry, reading this again I wasn't very clear. I agree with Shaohua's
patch because it is telling the allocator that we don't want to wait for
reclaim or compaction to find contiguous pages.
But, is there any fallback to a single page allocation somewhere else?
If this is the only way to get memory, we might want to add a single
alloc_page path that won't trigger compaction but is at least able to
wait for kswapd to make progress.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists