lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] mm/compaction: correct deferral logic for proactive compaction
Date
On 1/19/21 8:26 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Charan Teja Reddy wrote:
>
>> should_proactive_compact_node() returns true when sum of the
>> weighted fragmentation score of all the zones in the node is greater
>> than the wmark_high of compaction, which then triggers the proactive
>> compaction that operates on the individual zones of the node. But
>> proactive compaction runs on the zone only when its weighted
>> fragmentation score is greater than wmark_low(=wmark_high - 10).
>>
>> This means that the sum of the weighted fragmentation scores of all the
>> zones can exceed the wmark_high but individual weighted fragmentation
>> zone scores can still be less than wmark_low which makes the unnecessary
>> trigger of the proactive compaction only to return doing nothing.
>>
>> Issue with the return of proactive compaction with out even trying is
>> its deferral. It is simply deferred for 1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT if
>> the scores across the proactive compaction is same, thinking that
>> compaction didn't make any progress but in reality it didn't even try.
>
> Isn't this an issue in deferred compaction as well? It seems like
> deferred compaction should check that work was actually performed before
> deferring subsequent calls to compaction.

Direct compaction does, proactive not.

> In other words, I don't believe deferred compaction is intended to avoid
> checks to determine if compaction is worth it; it should only defer
> *additional* work that was not productive.

Yeah, that should be more optimal.

> Thoughts?
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-20 13:12    [W:0.093 / U:0.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site