lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 15/25] mm, compaction: Finish pageblock scanning on contention
From
Date
On 1/17/19 6:11 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 05:38:36PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > rate but also by the fact that the scanners do not meet for longer when
>> > pageblocks are actually used. Overall this is justified and completing
>> > a pageblock scan is very important for later patches.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>>
>> Some comments below.
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>> > @@ -538,18 +535,8 @@ static unsigned long isolate_freepages_block(struct compact_control *cc,
>> > * recheck as well.
>> > */
>> > if (!locked) {
>> > - /*
>> > - * The zone lock must be held to isolate freepages.
>> > - * Unfortunately this is a very coarse lock and can be
>> > - * heavily contended if there are parallel allocations
>> > - * or parallel compactions. For async compaction do not
>> > - * spin on the lock and we acquire the lock as late as
>> > - * possible.
>> > - */
>> > - locked = compact_trylock_irqsave(&cc->zone->lock,
>> > + locked = compact_lock_irqsave(&cc->zone->lock,
>> > &flags, cc);
>> > - if (!locked)
>> > - break;
>>
>> Seems a bit dangerous to continue compact_lock_irqsave() to return bool that
>> however now always returns true, and remove the safety checks that test the
>> result. Easy for somebody in the future to reintroduce some 'return false'
>> condition (even though the name now says lock and not trylock) and start
>> crashing. I would either change it to return void, or leave the checks in place.
>>
>
> I considered changing it from bool at the same time as "Rework
> compact_should_abort as compact_check_resched". It turned out to be a
> bit clumsy because the locked state must be explicitly updated in the
> caller then. e.g.
>
> locked = compact_lock_irqsave(...)
>
> becomes
>
> compact_lock_irqsave(...)
> locked = true
>
> I didn't think the result looked that great to be honest but maybe it's
> worth revisiting as a cleanup patch like "Rework compact_should_abort as
> compact_check_resched" on top.
>
>> >
>> > @@ -1411,12 +1395,8 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct compact_control *cc)
>> > isolate_freepages_block(cc, &isolate_start_pfn, block_end_pfn,
>> > freelist, false);
>> >
>> > - /*
>> > - * If we isolated enough freepages, or aborted due to lock
>> > - * contention, terminate.
>> > - */
>> > - if ((cc->nr_freepages >= cc->nr_migratepages)
>> > - || cc->contended) {
>>
>> Does it really make sense to continue in the case of free scanner, when we know
>> we will just return back the extra pages in the end? release_freepages() will
>> update the cached pfns, but the pageblock skip bit will stay, so we just leave
>> those pages behind. Unless finishing the block is important for the later
>> patches (as changelog mentions) even in the case of free scanner, but then we
>> can just skip the rest of it, as truly scanning it can't really help anything?
>>
>
> Finishing is important for later patches is one factor but not the only
> factor. While we eventually return all pages, we do not know at this
> point in time how many free pages are needed. Remember the migration
> source isolates COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX pages and then looks for migration
> targets. If the source isolates 32 pages, free might isolate more from
> one pageblock but that's ok as the migration source may need more free
> pages in the immediate future. It's less wasteful than it looks at first
> glance (or second or even third glance).
>
> However, if we isolated exactly enough targets, and the pageblock gets
> marked skipped, then each COMPACT_CLUSTER_MAX isolation from the target
> could potentially marge one new pageblock unnecessarily and increase
> scanning+resets overall. That would be bad.
>
> There still can be waste because we do not know in advance exactly how
> many migration sources there will be -- sure, we could calculate it but
> that involves scanning the source pageblock twice which is wasteful.
> I did try estimating it based on the remaining number of pages in the
> pageblock but the additional complexity did not appear to help.
>
> Does that make sense?

OK, thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-18 09:58    [W:0.089 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site