From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx106.postini.com [74.125.245.106]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB3996B004A for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F85BC8E.3020400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:17:02 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Removal of lumpy reclaim V2 References: <1334162298-18942-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <1334162298-18942-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Hugh Dickins , Ying Han , Linux-MM , LKML On 04/11/2012 12:38 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > Success rates are completely hosed for 3.4-rc2 which is almost certainly > due to [fe2c2a10: vmscan: reclaim at order 0 when compaction is enabled]. I > expected this would happen for kswapd and impair allocation success rates > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/25/166) but I did not anticipate this much > a difference: 80% less scanning, 37% less reclaim by kswapd Also, no gratuitous pageouts of anonymous memory. That was what really made a difference on a somewhat heavily loaded desktop + kvm workload. > In comparison, reclaim/compaction is not aggressive and gives up easily > which is the intended behaviour. hugetlbfs uses __GFP_REPEAT and would be > much more aggressive about reclaim/compaction than THP allocations are. The > stress test above is allocating like neither THP or hugetlbfs but is much > closer to THP. Next step: get rid of __GFP_NO_KSWAPD for THP, first in the -mm kernel > Mainline is now impaired in terms of high order allocation under heavy load > although I do not know to what degree as I did not test with __GFP_REPEAT. > Keep this in mind for bugs related to hugepage pool resizing, THP allocation > and high order atomic allocation failures from network devices. This might be due to smaller allocations not bumping the compaction deferring code, when we have deferred compaction for a higher order allocation. I wonder if the compaction deferring code is simply too defer-happy, now that we ignore compaction at lower orders than where compaction failed? -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org