linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] vmscan: narrowing synchrounous lumply reclaim condition
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:16:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101027171643.GA4896@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101027164138.GD29304@random.random>

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 06:41:38PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > <SNIP>
> 
> [...]
> 
> this rejects on THP code, lumpy is unusable with hugepages, it grinds
> the system to an halt, and there's no reason to let it survive. Lumpy
> is like compaction done with an hammer while blindfolded.
> 

The series drastically limits the level of hammering lumpy does to the
system. I'm currently keeping it alive because lumpy reclaim has received a lot
more testing than compaction has. While I ultimately see it going away, I am
resisting it being deleted until compaction has been around for a few releases.

> I don't know why community insists on improving lumpy when it has to
> be removed completely, especially now that we have memory compaction.
> 

Simply because it has been tested and even with compaction there were cases
envisoned where it would be used - low memory or when compaction is not
configured in for example. The ideal is that compaction is used until lumpy
is necessary although this applies more to the static resizing of the huge
page pool than THP which I'd expect to backoff without using lumpy reclaim
i.e. fail the allocation rather than using lumpy reclaim.

> I'll keep deleting on my tree...
> 
> I hope lumpy work stops here and that it goes away whenever THP is
> merged.
> 

Uhhh, I have one more modification in mind when lumpy is involved and
it's to relax the zone watermark slightly to only obey up to
PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER. At the moment, it is freeing more pages than
are necessary to satisfy an allocation request and hits the system
harder than it should. Similar logic should apply to compaction.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-27 17:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-05  6:11 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] low latency synchrounous lumpy reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05  6:12 ` [PATCH 1/7] vmscan: raise the bar to PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC stalls KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 15:02   ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-08  6:42     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 15:19   ` Rik van Riel
2010-08-05  6:13 ` [PATCH 2/7] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 13:55   ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-05 15:05   ` Rik van Riel
2010-08-05 15:06   ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-05  6:13 ` [PATCH 3/7] vmscan: synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 14:17   ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-06  0:52     ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-05 15:12   ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-05 15:26   ` Rik van Riel
2010-08-05  6:14 ` [PATCH 4/7] vmscan: narrowing synchrounous lumply reclaim condition KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 14:59   ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-27 16:41   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-10-27 17:16     ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-10-27 18:03       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-10-28  8:00         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-28 15:12           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-10-29  2:23             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-28 10:20         ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-02  2:04           ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-28  2:31     ` Ed Tomlinson
2010-10-28 15:22       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-08-05  6:14 ` [PATCH 5/7] vmscan: kill dead code in shrink_inactive_list() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 15:08   ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-05 15:14   ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-05  6:15 ` [PATCH 6/7] vmscan: remove PF_SWAPWRITE from __zone_reclaim() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05  6:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] vmscan: isolated_lru_pages() stop neighbor search if neighbor can't be isolated KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-05 15:25   ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-05 15:40   ` Minchan Kim

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=20101027171643.GA4896@csn.ul.ie \
    --to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).