From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, compaction: allow compaction for GFP_NOFS requests
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:38:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161005113839.GC7138@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004203202.GY9806@dastard>
On Wed 05-10-16 07:32:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:12:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > compaction has been disabled for GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO requests since
> > the direct compaction was introduced by 56de7263fcf3 ("mm: compaction:
> > direct compact when a high-order allocation fails"). The main reason
> > is that the migration of page cache pages might recurse back to fs/io
> > layer and we could potentially deadlock. This is overly conservative
> > because all the anonymous memory is migrateable in the GFP_NOFS context
> > just fine. This might be a large portion of the memory in many/most
> > workkloads.
> >
> > Remove the GFP_NOFS restriction and make sure that we skip all fs pages
> > (those with a mapping) while isolating pages to be migrated. We cannot
> > consider clean fs pages because they might need a metadata update so
> > only isolate pages without any mapping for nofs requests.
> >
> > The effect of this patch will be probably very limited in many/most
> > workloads because higher order GFP_NOFS requests are quite rare,
>
> You say they are rare only because you don't know how to trigger
> them easily. :/
true
> Try this:
>
> # mkfs.xfs -f -n size=64k <dev>
> # mount <dev> /mnt/scratch
> # time ./fs_mark -D 10000 -S0 -n 100000 -s 0 -L 32 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d /mnt/scratch/3 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/8 -d /mnt/scratch/9 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/10 -d /mnt/scratch/11 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/12 -d /mnt/scratch/13 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/14 -d /mnt/scratch/15
Does this simulate a standard or usual fs workload/configuration? I am
not questioning that higher order NOFS allocations are non-existent -
that's why I came with the patch in the first place ;). My observation
was that they are so rare that the visible effect of this patch might be
quite low or even hard to notice.
Anyway, thanks for a _useful_ testcase to play with! Let's see what
numbers I get from this.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, compaction: allow compaction for GFP_NOFS requests
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:38:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161005113839.GC7138@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004203202.GY9806@dastard>
On Wed 05-10-16 07:32:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:12:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > compaction has been disabled for GFP_NOFS and GFP_NOIO requests since
> > the direct compaction was introduced by 56de7263fcf3 ("mm: compaction:
> > direct compact when a high-order allocation fails"). The main reason
> > is that the migration of page cache pages might recurse back to fs/io
> > layer and we could potentially deadlock. This is overly conservative
> > because all the anonymous memory is migrateable in the GFP_NOFS context
> > just fine. This might be a large portion of the memory in many/most
> > workkloads.
> >
> > Remove the GFP_NOFS restriction and make sure that we skip all fs pages
> > (those with a mapping) while isolating pages to be migrated. We cannot
> > consider clean fs pages because they might need a metadata update so
> > only isolate pages without any mapping for nofs requests.
> >
> > The effect of this patch will be probably very limited in many/most
> > workloads because higher order GFP_NOFS requests are quite rare,
>
> You say they are rare only because you don't know how to trigger
> them easily. :/
true
> Try this:
>
> # mkfs.xfs -f -n size=64k <dev>
> # mount <dev> /mnt/scratch
> # time ./fs_mark -D 10000 -S0 -n 100000 -s 0 -L 32 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d /mnt/scratch/3 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/8 -d /mnt/scratch/9 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/10 -d /mnt/scratch/11 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/12 -d /mnt/scratch/13 \
> -d /mnt/scratch/14 -d /mnt/scratch/15
Does this simulate a standard or usual fs workload/configuration? I am
not questioning that higher order NOFS allocations are non-existent -
that's why I came with the patch in the first place ;). My observation
was that they are so rare that the visible effect of this patch might be
quite low or even hard to notice.
Anyway, thanks for a _useful_ testcase to play with! Let's see what
numbers I get from this.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-05 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-04 8:12 [RFC PATCH] mm, compaction: allow compaction for GFP_NOFS requests Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 8:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 20:32 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-04 20:32 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-05 11:38 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-10-05 11:38 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-06 2:11 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-06 2:11 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-07 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-07 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 0:29 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-13 0:29 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-13 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 11:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-13 11:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-16 20:49 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-16 20:49 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-17 8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-17 8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-18 6:24 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-18 6:24 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-18 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-18 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-07 5:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-07 5:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-07 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-07 6:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-07 8:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-07 8:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-07 9:21 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-07 9:21 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-10 6:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-10 6:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=20161005113839.GC7138@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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.