On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:50:56AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 02-03-16 11:19:54, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:02:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > + /* > > > > + * OK, so the watermak check has failed. Make sure we do all the > > > > + * retries for !costly high order requests and hope that multiple > > > > + * runs of compaction will generate some high order ones for us. > > > > + * > > > > + * XXX: ideally we should teach the compaction to try _really_ hard > > > > + * if we are in the retry path - something like priority 0 for the > > > > + * reclaim > > > > + */ > > > > + if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) > > > > + return true; > > > > + > > > > return false; > > > > This seems not a proper fix. Checking watermark with high order has > > another meaning that there is high order page or not. This isn't > > what we want here. > > Why not? Why should we retry the reclaim if we do not have >=order page > available? Reclaim itself doesn't guarantee any of the freed pages will > form the requested order. The ordering on the LRU lists is pretty much > random wrt. pfn ordering. On the other hand if we have a page available > which is just hidden by watermarks then it makes perfect sense to retry > and free even order-0 pages. > > > So, following fix is needed. > > > 'if (order)' check isn't needed. It is used to clarify the meaning of > > this fix. You can remove it. > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > index 1993894..8c80375 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -3125,6 +3125,10 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order, > > if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT)) > > return false; > > > > + /* To check whether compaction is available or not */ > > + if (order) > > + order = 0; > > + > > This would enforce the order 0 wmark check which is IMHO not correct as > per above. > > > /* > > * Keep reclaiming pages while there is a chance this will lead > > * somewhere. If none of the target zones can satisfy our allocation > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > @@ -3281,11 +3293,11 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > > > > goto noretry; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > - * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean > > > > - * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so do > > > > - * not reset the no progress counter for them > > > > + * High order allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't > > > > + * mean their order will become available due to high fragmentation so > > > > + * do not reset the no progress counter for them > > > > */ > > > > - if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) > > > > + if (did_some_progress && !order) > > > > no_progress_loops = 0; > > > > else > > > > no_progress_loops++; > > > > This unconditionally increases no_progress_loops for high order > > allocation, so, after 16 iterations, it will fail. If compaction isn't > > enabled in Kconfig, 16 times reclaim attempt would not be sufficient > > to make high order page. Should we consider this case also? > > How many retries would help? I do not think any number will work > reliably. Configurations without compaction enabled are asking for > problems by definition IMHO. Relying on order-0 reclaim for high order > allocations simply cannot work. I left compaction code for a long time so a super hero might make it perfect now but I don't think the dream come true yet and I believe any algorithm has a drawback so we end up relying on a fallback approach in case of not working compaction correctly. My suggestion is to reintroduce *lumpy reclaim* and kicks in only when compaction gave up by some reasons. It would be better to rely on random number retrial of reclaim. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>