All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm: have order > 0 compaction start near a pageblock with free pages
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:46:53 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120809084653.GB21033@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120809082328.GC12690@suse.de>

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:23:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:12:12AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > > 
> > > Second, it updates compact_cached_free_pfn in a more limited set of
> > > circumstances.
> > > 
> > > If a scanner has wrapped, it updates compact_cached_free_pfn to the end
> > > 	of the zone. When a wrapped scanner isolates a page, it updates
> > > 	compact_cached_free_pfn to point to the highest pageblock it
> > > 	can isolate pages from.
> > 
> > Okay until here.
> > 
> 
> Great.
> 
> > > 
> > > If a scanner has not wrapped when it has finished isolated pages it
> > > 	checks if compact_cached_free_pfn is pointing to the end of the
> > > 	zone. If so, the value is updated to point to the highest
> > > 	pageblock that pages were isolated from. This value will not
> > > 	be updated again until a free page scanner wraps and resets
> > > 	compact_cached_free_pfn.
> > 
> > I tried to understand your intention of this part but unfortunately failed.
> > By this part, the problem you mentioned could happen again?
> > 
> 
> Potentially yes, I did say it still races in the changelog.
> 
> >  				    			C
> >  Process A		M     S     			F
> >  		|---------------------------------------|
> >  Process B		M 	FS
> >  
> >  C is zone->compact_cached_free_pfn
> >  S is cc->start_pfree_pfn
> >  M is cc->migrate_pfn
> >  F is cc->free_pfn
> > 
> > In this diagram, Process A has just reached its migrate scanner, wrapped
> > around and updated compact_cached_free_pfn to end of the zone accordingly.
> > 
> 
> Yes. Now that it has wrapped it updates the compact_cached_free_pfn
> every loop of isolate_freepages here.
> 
>                 if (isolated) {
>                         high_pfn = max(high_pfn, pfn);
> 
>                         /*
>                          * If the free scanner has wrapped, update
>                          * compact_cached_free_pfn to point to the highest
>                          * pageblock with free pages. This reduces excessive
>                          * scanning of full pageblocks near the end of the
>                          * zone
>                          */
>                         if (cc->order > 0 && cc->wrapped)
>                                 zone->compact_cached_free_pfn = high_pfn;
>                 }
> 
> 
> 
> > Simultaneously, Process B finishes isolating in a block and peek 
> > compact_cached_free_pfn position and know it's end of the zone so
> > update compact_cached_free_pfn to highest pageblock that pages were
> > isolated from.
> > 
> 
> Yes, they race at this point. One of two things happen here and I agree
> that this is racy
> 
> 1. Process A does another iteration of its loop and sets it back
> 2. Process A does not do another iteration of the loop, the cached_pfn
>    is further along that it should. The next compacting process will
>    wrap early and reset cached_pfn again but continue to scan the zone.
> 
> Either option is relatively harmless because in both cases the zone gets
> scanned. In patch 4 it was possible that large portions of the zone were
> frequently missed.
> 
> > Process A updates compact_cached_free_pfn to the highest pageblock which
> > was set by process B because process A has wrapped. It ends up big jump
> > without any scanning in process A.
> > 
> 
> It recovers quickly and is nowhere near as severe as what patch 4
> suffers from.

Agreed.
Thanks, Mel.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm: have order > 0 compaction start near a pageblock with free pages
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:46:53 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120809084653.GB21033@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120809082328.GC12690@suse.de>

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:23:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:12:12AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > > 
> > > Second, it updates compact_cached_free_pfn in a more limited set of
> > > circumstances.
> > > 
> > > If a scanner has wrapped, it updates compact_cached_free_pfn to the end
> > > 	of the zone. When a wrapped scanner isolates a page, it updates
> > > 	compact_cached_free_pfn to point to the highest pageblock it
> > > 	can isolate pages from.
> > 
> > Okay until here.
> > 
> 
> Great.
> 
> > > 
> > > If a scanner has not wrapped when it has finished isolated pages it
> > > 	checks if compact_cached_free_pfn is pointing to the end of the
> > > 	zone. If so, the value is updated to point to the highest
> > > 	pageblock that pages were isolated from. This value will not
> > > 	be updated again until a free page scanner wraps and resets
> > > 	compact_cached_free_pfn.
> > 
> > I tried to understand your intention of this part but unfortunately failed.
> > By this part, the problem you mentioned could happen again?
> > 
> 
> Potentially yes, I did say it still races in the changelog.
> 
> >  				    			C
> >  Process A		M     S     			F
> >  		|---------------------------------------|
> >  Process B		M 	FS
> >  
> >  C is zone->compact_cached_free_pfn
> >  S is cc->start_pfree_pfn
> >  M is cc->migrate_pfn
> >  F is cc->free_pfn
> > 
> > In this diagram, Process A has just reached its migrate scanner, wrapped
> > around and updated compact_cached_free_pfn to end of the zone accordingly.
> > 
> 
> Yes. Now that it has wrapped it updates the compact_cached_free_pfn
> every loop of isolate_freepages here.
> 
>                 if (isolated) {
>                         high_pfn = max(high_pfn, pfn);
> 
>                         /*
>                          * If the free scanner has wrapped, update
>                          * compact_cached_free_pfn to point to the highest
>                          * pageblock with free pages. This reduces excessive
>                          * scanning of full pageblocks near the end of the
>                          * zone
>                          */
>                         if (cc->order > 0 && cc->wrapped)
>                                 zone->compact_cached_free_pfn = high_pfn;
>                 }
> 
> 
> 
> > Simultaneously, Process B finishes isolating in a block and peek 
> > compact_cached_free_pfn position and know it's end of the zone so
> > update compact_cached_free_pfn to highest pageblock that pages were
> > isolated from.
> > 
> 
> Yes, they race at this point. One of two things happen here and I agree
> that this is racy
> 
> 1. Process A does another iteration of its loop and sets it back
> 2. Process A does not do another iteration of the loop, the cached_pfn
>    is further along that it should. The next compacting process will
>    wrap early and reset cached_pfn again but continue to scan the zone.
> 
> Either option is relatively harmless because in both cases the zone gets
> scanned. In patch 4 it was possible that large portions of the zone were
> frequently missed.
> 
> > Process A updates compact_cached_free_pfn to the highest pageblock which
> > was set by process B because process A has wrapped. It ends up big jump
> > without any scanning in process A.
> > 
> 
> It recovers quickly and is nowhere near as severe as what patch 4
> suffers from.

Agreed.
Thanks, Mel.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-09  8:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-08 19:08 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Improve hugepage allocation success rates under load V2 Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08 ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: compaction: Update comment in try_to_compact_pages Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08   ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: Scale number of pages reclaimed by reclaim/compaction based on failures Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08   ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: compaction: Capture a suitable high-order page immediately when it is made available Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08   ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  1:33   ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  1:33     ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  8:11     ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  8:11       ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  8:41       ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  8:41         ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-08 19:08 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: have order > 0 compaction start off where it left Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08   ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: have order > 0 compaction start near a pageblock with free pages Mel Gorman
2012-08-08 19:08   ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  0:12   ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  0:12     ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  8:23     ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  8:23       ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-09  8:46       ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2012-08-09  8:46         ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  8:47   ` Minchan Kim
2012-08-09  8:47     ` Minchan Kim
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-08-09 13:49 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Improve hugepage allocation success rates under load V3 Mel Gorman
2012-08-09 13:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: have order > 0 compaction start near a pageblock with free pages Mel Gorman
2012-08-09 13:49   ` Mel Gorman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120809084653.GB21033@bbox \
    --to=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=jaschut@sandia.gov \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.