On 08/16/2016 08:07 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index fb975cec3518..b28517b918b0 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3155,13 +3155,8 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
* so it doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
* failure could be caused by insufficient priority
*/
- if (compaction_failed(compact_result)) {
- if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
- (*compact_priority)--;
- return true;
- }
- return false;
- }
+ if (compaction_failed(compact_result))
+ goto check_priority;
/*
* make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
@@ -3185,6 +3180,15 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
return true;
+ /*
+ * Make sure there is at least one attempt at the highest priority
+ * if we exhausted all retries at the lower priorities
+ */
+check_priority:
+ if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
+ (*compact_priority)--;
+ return true;
+ }
return false;
The only difference that this patch makes is increasing priority when
COMPACT_PARTIAL(COMPACTION_SUCCESS) returns. In that case, we can
Hm it's true that I adjusted this patch from the previous version,
before realizing that PARTIAL is now SUCCESS.
usually allocate high-order freepage so we would not enter here. Am I
missing something? Is it really needed behaviour change?
It will likely be rare when this triggers, when compaction success
doesn't lead to allocation success due to parallel allocation activity.
Thanks.
--
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>