lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: MADV_HUGEPAGE vs. NUMA semantic (was: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression)
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> >> But *that* in turn makes for other possible questions:
> >>
> >> - if the reason we couldn't get a local hugepage is that we're simply
> >> out of local memory (huge *or* small), then maybe a remote hugepage is
> >> better.
> >>
> >> Note that this now implies that the choice can be an issue of "did
> >> the hugepage allocation fail due to fragmentation, or due to the node
> >> being low of memory"
> > How exactly do you tell? Many systems are simply low on memory due to
> > caching. A clean pagecache is quite cheap to reclaim but it can be more
> > expensive to fault in. Do we consider it to be a viable target?
>
> Compaction can report if it failed (more precisely: was skipped) due to
> low memory, or for other reasons. It doesn't distinguish how easily
> reclaimable is the memory, but I don't think we should reclaim anything
> (see below).
>

Note that just reclaiming when the order-0 watermark in
__compaction_suitable() fails is unfortunately not always sufficient: it
needs to be accessible to isolate_freepages(). For order-9 memory, it's
possible for isolate_migratepages_block() to skip over a top of free pages
that were just reclaimed if there are unmovable pages preventing the
entire pageblock from being freed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-08 00:16    [W:0.087 / U:16.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site