lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded?
From
Date
On 7/10/19 12:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-07-19 11:42:40, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> [...]
>> As Michal suggested, I'm going to do some testing to see what impact
>> dropping the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag for these huge page allocations
>> will have on the number of pages allocated.
>
> Just to clarify. I didn't mean to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL from the
> allocation request. I meant to drop the special casing of the flag in
> should_continue_reclaim. I really have hard time to argue for this
> special casing TBH. The flag is meant to retry harder but that shouldn't
> be reduced to a single reclaim attempt because that alone doesn't really
> help much with the high order allocation. It is more about compaction to
> be retried harder.

Thanks Michal. That is indeed what you suggested earlier. I remembered
incorrectly. Sorry.

Removing the special casing for __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL in should_continue_reclaim
implies that it will return false if nothing was reclaimed (nr_reclaimed == 0)
in the previous pass.

When I make such a modification and test, I see long stalls as a result
of should_compact_retry returning true too often. On a system I am currently
testing, should_compact_retry has returned true 36000000 times. My guess
is that this may stall forever. Vlastmil previously asked about this behavior,
so I am capturing the reason. Like before [1], should_compact_retry is
returning true mostly because compaction_withdrawn() returns COMPACT_DEFERRED.

Total 36000000
35437500 COMPACT_DEFERRED
562500 COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED


[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/5/643
--
Mike Kravetz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-11 01:38    [W:0.068 / U:29.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site