Re: [PATCH 3/7] mm: vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and use compaction instead of lumpy reclaim

[Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>]

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:27:45AM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:43:51PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Lumpy reclaim is disruptive. It reclaims a large number of pages and ignores
> > the age of the pages it reclaims. This can incur significant stalls and
> > potentially increase the number of major faults.
> > 
> > Compaction has reached the point where it is considered reasonably stable
> > (meaning it has passed a lot of testing) and is a potential candidate for
> > displacing lumpy reclaim. This patch introduces an alternative to lumpy
> > reclaim whe compaction is available called reclaim/compaction. The basic
> > operation is very simple - instead of selecting a contiguous range of pages
> > to reclaim, a number of order-0 pages are reclaimed and then compaction is
> > later by either kswapd (compact_zone_order()) or direct compaction
> > (__alloc_pages_direct_compact()).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> 
> > @@ -286,18 +290,20 @@ static void set_lumpy_reclaim_mode(int priority, struct scan_control *sc,
> >  	lumpy_mode syncmode = sync ? LUMPY_MODE_SYNC : LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC;
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * Some reclaim have alredy been failed. No worth to try synchronous
> > -	 * lumpy reclaim.
> > +	 * Initially assume we are entering either lumpy reclaim or
> > +	 * reclaim/compaction.Depending on the order, we will either set the
> > +	 * sync mode or just reclaim order-0 pages later.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (sync && sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode & LUMPY_MODE_SINGLE)
> > -		return;
> > +	if (COMPACTION_BUILD)
> > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> > +	else
> > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> 
> Isn't this a regression for !COMPACTION_BUILD in that earlier kernels
> would not do sync lumpy reclaim when somebody disabled it during the
> async run?
> 

You'll need to clarify your question I'm afraid. In 2.6.36 for example,
if lumpy reclaim gets disabled then sync reclaim does not happen at all.
This was due to large stalls being observed when copying large amounts
of data to slow storage such as a USB external drive.

> If so, it should be trivial to fix.  Aside from that
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> 

Thanks

-- 
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>