linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [ATTEND] many topics
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:12:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170127131218.GH4143@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tw8ltt6n.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>

On Fri 27-01-17 08:20:00, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 26-01-17 10:19:31, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> >> I think it would be better if we could discard the idea of "reclaimable"
> >> and just stick with "movable" and "unmovable".  Lots of things are not
> >> movable at present, but could be made movable with relatively little
> >> effort.  Once the interfaces are in place to allow arbitrary kernel code
> >> to find out when things should be moved, I suspect that a lot of
> >> allocations could become movable.
> >
> > I believe we need both. There will be many objects which are hard to be
> > movable yet they are reclaimable which can help to reduce the
> > fragmentation longterm.
> 
> Do we?  Any "reclaimable" objects which are "busy", are really
> "unmovable" objects, and so contribute to fragmentation.

true and not much different from other reclaimable or movable objects.
E.g. a pinned LRU page is also unmovable.

> I've been thinking about inodes and dentries - which usually come up as
> problematic objects in this context.
> It would be quite complex to support moving arbitrary inodes or dentries
> given the current design.  But maybe we don't need to.
> Suppose these objects were allocated as 'movable', but when the first
> long-term reference was taken (i.e. the first non-movable reference),
> they were first moved to the "non-movable" region?

I am not familiar with the [di]cache enough to comment on how easy would
be to move those objects around. But there were already suggestions that
LRU pages would be migrated before a long term pins to not block
migration. Anyway this sounds like a topic on its own. From the current
discussion so far it really seems that it would be really hard to define
sensible semantic for GFP_TEMPORARY with the current implementation so I
will send a patch to simply drop this flag. If we want to have such a
flag then we should start over with defining the semantic first and
think this thing over properly.
-- 
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>

      reply	other threads:[~2017-01-27 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-18  5:49 [ATTEND] many topics Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-18 10:13 ` [Lsf-pc] " Jan Kara
2017-01-18 11:26   ` willy
2017-01-18 13:32 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-19 11:05   ` willy
2017-01-19 11:33     ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-19 11:52       ` willy
2017-01-19 12:11         ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-21  0:11           ` NeilBrown
2017-01-21 13:16             ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-01-22  4:45               ` NeilBrown
2017-01-23  6:05                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-23  6:30                   ` NeilBrown
2017-01-23  6:35                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-23 17:09                   ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-01-23 19:34                     ` NeilBrown
2017-01-25 14:36                       ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-01-25 20:36                         ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-01-25 21:15                           ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-01-25 23:19                         ` NeilBrown
2017-01-26  8:56                           ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-26 21:20                             ` NeilBrown
2017-01-27 13:12                               ` Michal Hocko [this message]

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=20170127131218.GH4143@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --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 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).