On Thu 28-04-16 10:59:22, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 04/20/2016 09:47 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > >"mm: consider compaction feedback also for costly allocation" has > >removed the upper bound for the reclaim/compaction retries based on the > >number of reclaimed pages for costly orders. While this is desirable > >the patch did miss a mis interaction between reclaim, compaction and the > >retry logic. > > Hmm perhaps reversing the order of patches 13 and 14 would be a bit safer > wrt future bisections then? Add compaction_zonelist_suitable() first with > the reasoning, and then immediately use it in the other patch. Hmm, I do not think the risk is high. This would require the allocate GFP_REPEAT large orders to the last drop which is not usual. I found the ordering more logical to argue about because this patch will be mostly noop for costly orders without 13 and !costly allocations retry endlessly anyway. So I would prefer this ordering even though there is a window where an extreme load can lockup. I do not expect people shooting their head during bisection. [...] > > > >[vbabka@xxxxxxx: fix classzone_idx vs. high_zoneidx usage in > >compaction_zonelist_suitable] > >Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>