Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

[Mel Gorman]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific
> >>issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by
> >>making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not
> >>related to that CMA problem.
> >
> >Let me disagree. Guaranteeing one suitable high-order page is not
> >enough, so the suggested patch does not work that well for me.
> >Existing broken watermark calculation doesn't work for me either, as
> >opposed to the one with my patch applied. Both solutions are related
> >to the CMA issue but one does make compaction work harder and cause
> >bigger latencies -- why do you think these are not related?
> 
> Well you didn't mention which issues you have with this patch. If you did
> measure bigger latencies and more compaction work, please post the numbers
> and details about the test.
> 

And very broadly watch out for decisions that force more reclaim/compaction
to potentially reduce latency in the future. It's trading definite overhead
now combined with potential reclaim of hot pages to reduce a *possible*
high-order allocation request in the future. It's why I think a series that
keeps more high-order pages free to reduce future high-order allocation
latency needs to be treated with care.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/