From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C72BC742B2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAED2064B for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726922AbfGLJtX (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:49:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37850 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725989AbfGLJtW (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:49:22 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E6EAF6B; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:49:19 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Michal Hocko Cc: Mike Kravetz , Hillf Danton , Vlastimil Babka , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded? Message-ID: <20190712094919.GI13484@suse.de> References: <80036eed-993d-1d24-7ab6-e495f01b1caa@oracle.com> <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com> <20190710194403.GR29695@dhcp22.suse.cz> <9d6c8b74-3cf6-4b9e-d3cb-a7ef49f838c7@oracle.com> <20190711071245.GB29483@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190711071245.GB29483@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 10-07-19 16:36:58, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > On 7/10/19 12:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Wed 10-07-19 11:42:40, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > [...] > > >> As Michal suggested, I'm going to do some testing to see what impact > > >> dropping the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag for these huge page allocations > > >> will have on the number of pages allocated. > > > > > > Just to clarify. I didn't mean to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL from the > > > allocation request. I meant to drop the special casing of the flag in > > > should_continue_reclaim. I really have hard time to argue for this > > > special casing TBH. The flag is meant to retry harder but that shouldn't > > > be reduced to a single reclaim attempt because that alone doesn't really > > > help much with the high order allocation. It is more about compaction to > > > be retried harder. > > > > Thanks Michal. That is indeed what you suggested earlier. I remembered > > incorrectly. Sorry. > > > > Removing the special casing for __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL in should_continue_reclaim > > implies that it will return false if nothing was reclaimed (nr_reclaimed == 0) > > in the previous pass. > > > > When I make such a modification and test, I see long stalls as a result > > of should_compact_retry returning true too often. On a system I am currently > > testing, should_compact_retry has returned true 36000000 times. My guess > > is that this may stall forever. Vlastmil previously asked about this behavior, > > so I am capturing the reason. Like before [1], should_compact_retry is > > returning true mostly because compaction_withdrawn() returns COMPACT_DEFERRED. > > This smells like a problem to me. But somebody more familiar with > compaction should comment. > Examine in should_compact_retry if it's retrying because compaction_zonelist_suitable is true. Looking at it now, it would not necessarily do the right thing because any non-skipped zone would make it eligible which is too strong a condition as COMPACT_SKIPPED is not reliably set. If that function is the case, it would be reasonable remove "ret = compaction_zonelist_suitable(ac, order, alloc_flags);" and the implementation of compaction_zonelist_suitable entirely as part of your fix. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs