[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/35] Cleanup and optimise the page allocator V3
    On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:02:17PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:33:58PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > Wheras if you defer this until the point you need a higher order
    > > page, the only thing you have to work with are the pages that are
    > > free *right now*.
    > >
    > Well, buddy always uses the smallest available page first. Even with
    > deferred coalescing, it will merge up to order-5 at least. Lets say they
    > could have merged up to order-10 in ordinary circumstances, they are
    > still avoided for as long as possible. Granted, it might mean that an
    > order-5 is split that could have been merged but it's hard to tell how
    > much of a difference that makes.

    But the kinds of pages *you* are interested in are order-10, right?

    > > Your anti-frag tests probably don't stress this long term fragmentation
    > > problem.
    > >
    > Probably not, but we have little data on long-term fragmentation other than
    > anecdotal evidence that it's ok these days.

    Well, I think before anti-frag there was lots of anecdotal evidence
    that it's "ok", except for loads heavily using large higher order
    allocations. I don't know if we'd have many systems running with
    hundreds of days of uptime on such workloads post-anti-frag?

    Google might? But I don't know how long their uptimes are. I expect
    we'd have a better idea in a couple more years after the next
    enterprise distro release cycles with anti-frag.

    > > Still, it's significant enough that I think it should be made
    > > optional (and arguably default to on) even if it does harm higher
    > > order allocations a bit.
    > >
    > I could make PAGE_ORDER_MERGE_ORDER a proc tunable? If it's placed as a
    > read-mostly variable beside the gfp_zone table, it might even fit in the
    > same cache line.

    Hmm, possibly. OTOH I don't like tunables. If you don't think it will
    be a problem for hugepage allocations, then I would prefer just to
    leave it on and 5 by default (or even less? COSTLY_ORDER?)

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-16 13:27    [W:0.020 / U:46.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site