lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: compaction: support triggering of proactive compaction by user
From
Date
On 6/17/21 9:30 AM, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> Thanks Vlastimil for your inputs!!
>
> On 6/16/2021 5:29 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> This triggering of proactive compaction is done on a write to
>>> sysctl.compaction_proactiveness by user.
>>>
>>> [1]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit?id=facdaa917c4d5a376d09d25865f5a863f906234a
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Charan Teja Reddy <charante@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> changes in V2:
>> You forgot to also summarize the changes. Please do in next version.
>
> I think we can get rid off 'proactive_defer' thread variable with the
> timeout approach you suggested. But it is still requires to have one
> additional variable 'proactive_compact_trigger', which main purpose is
> to decide if the kcompactd wakeup is for proactive compaction or not.
> Please see below code:
> if (wait_event_freezable_timeout() && !proactive_compact_trigger) {
> // do the non-proactive work
> continue
> }
> // do the proactive work
> .................
>
> Thus I feel that on writing new proactiveness, it is required to do
> wakeup_kcomppactd() + set a flag that this wakeup is for proactive work.
>
> Am I failed to get your point here?

The check whether to do non-proactive work is already guarded by
kcompactd_work_requested(), which looks at pgdat->kcompactd_max_order and this
is set by wakeup_kcompactd().

So with a plain wakeup where we don't set pgdat->kcompactd_max_order will make
it consider proactive work instead and we don't need another trigger variable
AFAICS.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-17 16:39    [W:0.661 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site