Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/compaction: enhance compaction finish condition
From: Vlastimil Babka
Date: Tue Feb 17 2015 - 04:46:15 EST
On 02/12/2015 08:15 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Compaction has anti fragmentation algorithm. It is that freepage
should be more than pageblock order to finish the compaction if we don't
find any freepage in requested migratetype buddy list. This is for
mitigating fragmentation, but, there is a lack of migratetype
consideration and it is too excessive compared to page allocator's anti
fragmentation algorithm.
Not considering migratetype would cause premature finish of compaction.
For example, if allocation request is for unmovable migratetype,
freepage with CMA migratetype doesn't help that allocation and
compaction should not be stopped. But, current logic regards this
situation as compaction is no longer needed, so finish the compaction.
Secondly, condition is too excessive compared to page allocator's logic.
We can steal freepage from other migratetype and change pageblock
migratetype on more relaxed conditions in page allocator. This is designed
to prevent fragmentation and we can use it here. Imposing hard constraint
only to the compaction doesn't help much in this case since page allocator
would cause fragmentation again.
To solve these problems, this patch borrows anti fragmentation logic from
page allocator. It will reduce premature compaction finish in some cases
and reduce excessive compaction work.
stress-highalloc test in mmtests with non movable order 7 allocation shows
considerable increase of compaction success rate.
Compaction success rate (Compaction success * 100 / Compaction stalls, %)
31.82 : 42.20
I tested it on non-reboot 5 runs stress-highalloc benchmark and found that
there is no more degradation on allocation success rate than before. That
roughly means that this patch doesn't result in more fragmentations.
Vlastimil suggests additional idea that we only test for fallbacks
when migration scanner has scanned a whole pageblock. It looked good for
fragmentation because chance of stealing increase due to making more
free pages in certain pageblock. So, I tested it, but, it results in
decreased compaction success rate, roughly 38.00. I guess the reason that
if system is low memory condition, watermark check could be failed due to
not enough order 0 free page and so, sometimes, we can't reach a fallback
check although migrate_pfn is aligned to pageblock_nr_pages. I can insert
code to cope with this situation but it makes code more complicated so
I don't include his idea at this patch.
Hm that's weird. I'll try to investigate this later. Meanwhile it can
stay as it is.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
But you'll need to fix:
---
mm/compaction.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
mm/internal.h | 2 ++
mm/page_alloc.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index 782772d..d40c426 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -1170,13 +1170,23 @@ static int __compact_finished(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc,
/* Direct compactor: Is a suitable page free? */
for (order = cc->order; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) {
struct free_area *area = &zone->free_area[order];
+ bool can_steal;
/* Job done if page is free of the right migratetype */
if (!list_empty(&area->free_list[migratetype]))
return COMPACT_PARTIAL;
- /* Job done if allocation would set block type */
- if (order >= pageblock_order && area->nr_free)
+ /* MIGRATE_MOVABLE can fallback on MIGRATE_CMA */
+ if (migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE &&
+ !list_empty(&area->free_list[MIGRATE_CMA]))
This won't compile with !CONFIG_CMA, right? I recall pointing it on v3
already (or something similar elsewhere).
+ return COMPACT_PARTIAL;
+
+ /*
+ * Job done if allocation would steal freepages from
+ * other migratetype buddy lists.
+ */
+ if (find_suitable_fallback(area, order, migratetype,
+ true, &can_steal) != -1)
return COMPACT_PARTIAL;
}
diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index c4d6c9b..9640650 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ isolate_freepages_range(struct compact_control *cc,
unsigned long
isolate_migratepages_range(struct compact_control *cc,
unsigned long low_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
+int find_suitable_fallback(struct free_area *area, unsigned int order,
+ int migratetype, bool only_stealable, bool *can_steal);
#endif
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 64a4974..95654f9 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1191,9 +1191,14 @@ static void steal_suitable_fallback(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
set_pageblock_migratetype(page, start_type);
}
-/* Check whether there is a suitable fallback freepage with requested order. */
-static int find_suitable_fallback(struct free_area *area, unsigned int order,
- int migratetype, bool *can_steal)
+/*
+ * Check whether there is a suitable fallback freepage with requested order.
+ * If only_stealable is true, this function returns fallback_mt only if
+ * we can steal other freepages all together. This would help to reduce
+ * fragmentation due to mixed migratetype pages in one pageblock.
+ */
+int find_suitable_fallback(struct free_area *area, unsigned int order,
+ int migratetype, bool only_stealable, bool *can_steal)
{
int i;
int fallback_mt;
@@ -1213,7 +1218,11 @@ static int find_suitable_fallback(struct free_area *area, unsigned int order,
if (can_steal_fallback(order, migratetype))
*can_steal = true;
- return fallback_mt;
+ if (!only_stealable)
+ return fallback_mt;
+
+ if (*can_steal)
+ return fallback_mt;
Why not just single if (!only_stealable || *can_steal)
}
return -1;
@@ -1235,7 +1244,7 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
--current_order) {
area = &(zone->free_area[current_order]);
fallback_mt = find_suitable_fallback(area, current_order,
- start_migratetype, &can_steal);
+ start_migratetype, false, &can_steal);
if (fallback_mt == -1)
continue;
--
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/