lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: question: should_compact_retry limit
From
Date
On 6/5/19 6:05 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 6/5/19 12:58 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 6/5/19 1:30 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Hmm I guess we didn't expect compaction_withdrawn() to be so
>> consistently returned. Do you know what value of compact_result is there
>> in your test?
>
> Added some instrumentation to record values and ran test,
>
> 557904 Total
>
> 549186 COMPACT_DEFERRED

Retrying mindlessly with compaction deferred sounds definitely wrong,
I'll try to look at it. Thanks.

> 8718 COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED
>
> Do note that this is not my biggest problem with these allocations. That is
> should_continue_reclaim returning true more often that in should. Still
> trying to get more info on that. This was just something curious I also
> discovered.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-05 18:38    [W:0.066 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site