lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Stop reclaim/compaction earlier due to insufficient progress if !__GFP_REPEAT
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:22:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:50:49 +0000
> Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
>
> > should_continue_reclaim() for reclaim/compaction allows scanning to continue
> > even if pages are not being reclaimed until the full list is scanned. In
> > terms of allocation success, this makes sense but potentially it introduces
> > unwanted latency for high-order allocations such as transparent hugepages
> > and network jumbo frames that would prefer to fail the allocation attempt
> > and fallback to order-0 pages. Worse, there is a potential that the full
> > LRU scan will clear all the young bits, distort page aging information and
> > potentially push pages into swap that would have otherwise remained resident.
>
> afaict the patch affects order-0 allocations as well. What are the
> implications of this?
>

order-0 allocation should not be affected because RECLAIM_MODE_COMPACTION
is not set so the following avoids the gfp_mask being examined;

if (!(sc->reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_MODE_COMPACTION))
return false;

> Also, what might be the downsides of this change, and did you test for
> them?
>

The main downside that I predict is that the worst-case latencies for
successful transparent hugepage allocations will be increased as there will
be more looping in do_try_to_free_pages() at higher priorities. I would also
not be surprised if there were fewer successful allocations.

Latencies did seem to be worse for order-9 allocations in testing but it was
offset by lower latencies for lower orders and seemed an acceptable trade-off.

Other major consequences did not spring to mind.

> > This patch will stop reclaim/compaction if no pages were reclaimed in the
> > last SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages that were considered.
>
> a) Why SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX? Is (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX+7) better or worse?
>

SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is the standard "unit of reclaim" and that's what I had
in mind when writing the comment but it's wrong and misleading. More on
this below.

> b) The sentence doesn't seem even vaguely accurate. shrink_zone()
> will scan vastly more than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages before calling
> should_continue_reclaim(). Confused.
>
> c) The patch doesn't "stop reclaim/compaction" fully. It stops it
> against one zone. reclaim will then advance on to any other
> eligible zones.

You're right on both counts and this comment is inaccurate. It should
have read;

This patch will stop reclaim/compaction for the current zone in shrink_zone()
if there were no pages reclaimed in the last batch of scanning at the
current priority. For allocations such as hugetlbfs that use __GFP_REPEAT
and have fewer fallback options, the full LRU list may still be scanned.

The comment in the code itself then becomes

+ /*
+ * For non-__GFP_REPEAT allocations which can presumably
+ * fail without consequence, stop if we failed to reclaim
+ * any pages from the last batch of pages that were scanned.
+ * This will return to the caller faster at the risk that
+ * reclaim/compaction and the resulting allocation attempt
+ * fails
+ */

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-18 13:25    [W:3.867 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site