Re: [PATCH 06/11] Export fragmentation index via/proc/extfrag_index

[Mel Gorman]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47:17AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 09:22:04AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > > +	/*
> > > > > > +	 * Index is between 0 and 1 so return within 3 decimal places
> > > > > > +	 *
> > > > > > +	 * 0 => allocation would fail due to lack of memory
> > > > > > +	 * 1 => allocation would fail due to fragmentation
> > > > > > +	 */
> > > > > > +	return 1000 - ( (1000+(info->free_pages * 1000 / requested)) / info->free_blocks_total);
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dumb question.
> > > > > your paper (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1375634.1375641) says
> > > > > fragmentation_index = 1 - (TotalFree/SizeRequested)/BlocksFree
> > > > > but your code have extra '1000+'. Why?
> > > > 
> > > > To get an approximation to three decimal places.
> > > 
> > > Do you mean this is poor man's round up logic?
> > 
> > Not exactly.
> > 
> > The intention is to have a value of 968 instead of 0.968231. i.e.
> > instead of a value between 0 and 1, it'll be a value between 0 and 1000
> > that matches the first three digits after the decimal place.
> 
> Let's consider extream case.
> 
> free_pages: 1
> requested: 1
> free_blocks_total: 1
> 
> frag_index = 1000  - ((1000 + 1*1000/1))/1 = -1000
> 
> This is not your intension, I guess. 

Why not?

See this comment

/* Fragmentation index only makes sense when a request would fail */

In your example, there is a free page of the requested size so the allocation
would succeed. In this case, fragmentation index does indeed go negative
but the value is not useful.

> Probably we don't need any round_up/round_down logic. because fragmentation_index
> is only used "if (fragindex >= 0 && fragindex <= 500)" check in try_to_compact_pages().
> +1 or -1 inaccurate can be ignored. iow, I think we can remove '1000+' expression.
> 

This isn't about rounding, it's about having a value that normally is
between 0 and 1 expressed as a number between 0 and 1000 because we
can't use double in the kernel.

> 
> > > Why don't you use DIV_ROUND_UP? likes following,
> > > 
> > > return 1000 - (DIV_ROUND_UP(info->free_pages * 1000 / requested) /  info->free_blocks_total);
> > > 
> > 
> > Because it's not doing the same thing unless I missed something.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/