Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:18:56 +0100 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations |
| |
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific > >>issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by > >>making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not > >>related to that CMA problem. > > > >Let me disagree. Guaranteeing one suitable high-order page is not > >enough, so the suggested patch does not work that well for me. > >Existing broken watermark calculation doesn't work for me either, as > >opposed to the one with my patch applied. Both solutions are related > >to the CMA issue but one does make compaction work harder and cause > >bigger latencies -- why do you think these are not related? > > Well you didn't mention which issues you have with this patch. If you did > measure bigger latencies and more compaction work, please post the numbers > and details about the test. >
And very broadly watch out for decisions that force more reclaim/compaction to potentially reduce latency in the future. It's trading definite overhead now combined with potential reclaim of hot pages to reduce a *possible* high-order allocation request in the future. It's why I think a series that keeps more high-order pages free to reduce future high-order allocation latency needs to be treated with care.
-- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
| |