From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, 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: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:12:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101028151201.GN29304@random.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101028162522.B0B5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 05:00:57PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> > My tree uses compaction in a fine way inside kswapd too and tons of
> > systems are running without lumpy and floods of order 9 allocations
> > with only compaction (in direct reclaim and kswapd) without the
> > slighest problem. Furthermore I extended compaction for all
> > allocations not just that PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (maybe I already
> > removed all PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER checks?). There's no good reason
> > not to use compaction for every allocation including 1,2,3, and things
> > works fine this way.
>
> Interesting. I parsed this you have compaction improvement. If so,
> can you please post them? Generically, 1) improve the feature 2) remove
> unused one is safety order. In the other hand, reverse order seems to has
> regression risk.
THP is way higher priority than the compaction improvements, so the
compaction improvements are not at the top of the queue:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git;a=shortlog
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8f02410d718725a7daaf192af33abc41dcfae16;hp=39c4a61fedc5f5bf0c95a60483ac0acea1a9a757
At the top of the queue there is the lumpy_reclaim removal as that's
higher priority than THP.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-28 15:12 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
2010-10-27 18:03 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-10-28 8:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-28 15:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
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=20101028151201.GN29304@random.random \
--to=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=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--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).