Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm: migration: Allow migration to operateasynchronously and avoid synchronous compaction in the faster path

[Mel Gorman]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:21:06PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 04:22:45PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -484,6 +486,7 @@ static unsigned long compact_zone_order(struct zone *zone,
> >  		.order = order,
> >  		.migratetype = allocflags_to_migratetype(gfp_mask),
> >  		.zone = zone,
> > +		.sync = false,
> >  	};
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.freepages);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.migratepages);
> 
> I like this because I'm very afraid to avoid wait-I/O latencies
> introduced into hugepage allocations that I prefer to fail quickly and
> be handled later by khugepaged ;).
> 

As you can see from the graphs in the leader, it makes a big difference to
latency as well to avoid sync migration where possible.

> But I could have khugepaged call this with sync=true... so I'd need a
> __GFP_ flag that only khugepaged would use to notify compaction should
> be synchronous for khugepaged (not for the regular allocations in page
> faults). Can we do this through gfp_mask only?
> 

We could pass gfp flags in I guess and abuse __GFP_NO_KSWAPD (from the THP
series obviously)?

> > @@ -500,6 +503,7 @@ unsigned long reclaimcompact_zone_order(struct zone *zone,
> >  		.order = order,
> >  		.migratetype = allocflags_to_migratetype(gfp_mask),
> >  		.zone = zone,
> > +		.sync = true,
> >  	};
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.freepages);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cc.migratepages);
> 
> Is this intentional?

Yes, it's the "slower" path where we've already reclaim pages and more
willing to wait for the compaction to occur as the alternative is failing
the allocation.

> That inner compaction invocation is
> equivalent to the one one interleaved with the shrinker tried before
> invoking the shrinker. So I don't see why they should differ (one sync
> and one async).
> 

The async one later in the series becomes very light with the heavier
work being done within reclaim if necessary.

> Anyway I'd prefer the inner invocation to be removed as a whole and to
> keep only going with the interleaving and to keep the two jobs of
> compaction and shrinking memory fully separated and to stick to the
> interleaving. If this reclaimcompact_zone_order helps maybe it means
> compact_zone_order isn't doing the right thing and we're hiding it by
> randomly calling it more frequently...
> 

I'll think about it more. I could just leave it at try_to_compact_pages
doing the zonelist scan although it's not immediately occuring to me how I
should decide between sync and async other than "async the first time and
sync after that". The allocator does not have the same "reclaim priority"
awareness that reclaim does.

> I can see a point however in doing:
> 
> compaction async
> shrink (may wait) (scan 500 pages, freed 32 pages)
> compaction sync (may wait)
> 
> to:
> 
> compaction async
> shrink (scan 32 pages, freed 0 pages)
> compaction sync (hugepage generated nobody noticed)
> shrink (scan 32 pages, freed 0 pages)
> compaction sync
> shrink (scan 32 pages, freed 0 pages)
> [..]
> 

-- 
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/