lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch for-4.7] mm, compaction: prevent VM_BUG_ON when terminating freeing scanner
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:01:29PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > > Note: I really dislike the low watermark check in split_free_page() and
> > > consider it poor software engineering. The function should split a free
> > > page, nothing more. Terminating memory compaction because of a low
> > > watermark check when we're simply trying to migrate memory seems like an
> > > arbitrary heuristic. There was an objection to removing it in the first
> > > proposed patch, but I think we should really consider removing that
> > > check so this is simpler.
> >
> > There's a patch changing it to min watermark (you were CC'd on the series). We
> > could argue whether it belongs to split_free_page() or some wrapper of it, but
> > I don't think removing it completely should be done. If zone is struggling
> > with order-0 pages, a functionality for making higher-order pages shouldn't
> > make it even worse. It's also not that arbitrary, even if we succeeded the
> > migration and created a high-order page, the higher-order allocation would
> > still fail due to watermark checks. Worse, __compact_finished() would keep
> > telling the compaction to continue, creating an even longer lag, which is also
> > against your recent patches.
> >
>
> I'm suggesting we shouldn't check any zone watermark in split_free_page():
> that function should just split the free page.
>
> I don't find our current watermark checks to determine if compaction is
> worthwhile to be invalid, but I do think that we should avoid checking or
> acting on any watermark in isolate_freepages() itself. We could do more
> effective checking in __compact_finished() to determine if we should
> terminate compaction, but the freeing scanner feels like the wrong place
> to do it -- it's also expensive to check while gathering free pages for
> memory that we have already successfully isolated as part of the
> iteration.
>
> Do you have any objection to this fix for 4.7?
>
> Joonson and/or Minchan, does this address the issue that you reported?

Unfortunately, I have no test case to trigger it. But, I think that
this patch will address it. Anyway, I commented one problem on this
patch in other e-mail so please fix it.

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-06 04:21    [W:0.064 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site