From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:07:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170831090722.GA12920@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170828123657.GK17097@dhcp22.suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2056 bytes --]
Hi!
> > > "This allocation is temporary. It lasts milliseconds, not hours."
> >
> > It isn't sufficient to give a rule for when GFP_TEMPORARY will be used,
> > you also need to explain (at least in general terms) how the information
> > will be used. Also you need to give guidelines on whether the flag
> > should be set for allocation that will last seconds or minutes.
> >
> > If we have a flag that doesn't have a well defined meaning that actually
> > affects behavior, it will not be used consistently, and if we ever
> > change exactly how it behaves we can expect things to break. So it is
> > better not to have a flag, than to have a poorly defined flag.
>
> Absolutely agreed!
>
> > My current thoughts is that the important criteria is not how long the
> > allocation will be used for, but whether it is reclaimable. Allocations
> > that will only last 5 msecs are reclaimable by calling "usleep(5000)".
> > Other allocations might be reclaimable in other ways. Allocations that
> > are not reclaimable may well be directed to a more restricted pool of
> > memory, and might be more likely to fail. If we grew a strong
> > "reclaimable" concept, this 'temporary' concept that you want to hold on
> > to would become a burden.
>
> ... and here again. The whole motivation for the flag was to gather
> these objects together and reduce chances of internal fragmentation
> due to long lived objects mixed with short term ones. Without an
> explicit way to reclaim those objects or having a clear checkpoint to
> wait for it is not really helping us to reach desired outcome (less
> fragmented memory).
Really?
If you group allocations that last << 1 second, and ones that last >>
1 second, I'm pretty sure it reduces fragmentation... "reclaimable" or
not.
Fragmentation is just statistical property, so getting it "mostly
right" helps...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-31 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-28 9:19 [RFC PATCH] treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 9:19 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-28 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-28 13:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-28 13:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-08-23 17:57 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-23 17:57 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-25 6:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 6:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 7:28 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-25 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 21:39 ` Pavel Machek
2017-08-26 4:11 ` NeilBrown
2017-08-28 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-28 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-31 9:07 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2017-08-31 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2017-08-31 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2017-08-28 12:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-28 12:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-31 9:10 ` Pavel Machek
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=20170831090722.GA12920@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.