> On 19 Feb 2018, at 09:47, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 04:47:55PM +0000, robert.m.harris@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: "Robert M. Harris" <robert.m.harris@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> __fragmentation_index() calculates a value used to determine whether
>> compaction should be favoured over page reclaim in the event of allocation
>> failure. The calculation itself is opaque and, on inspection, does not
>> match its existing description. The function purports to return a value
>> between 0 and 1000, representing units of 1/1000. Barring the case of a
>> pathological shortfall of memory, the lower bound is instead 500. This is
>> significant because it is the default value of sysctl_extfrag_threshold,
>> i.e. the value below which compaction should be avoided in favour of page
>> reclaim for costly pages.
>>
>> This patch implements and documents a modified version of the original
>> expression that returns a value in the range 0 <= index < 1000. It amends
>> the default value of sysctl_extfrag_threshold to preserve the existing
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert M. Harris <robert.m.harris@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> You have to update sysctl_extfrag_threshold as well for the new bounds.
This patch makes its default value zero.
> It effectively makes it a no-op but it was a no-op already and adjusting
> that default should be supported by data indicating it's safe.
Would it be acceptable to demonstrate using tracing that in both the
pre- and post-patch cases
1. compaction is attempted regardless of fragmentation index,
excepting that
2. reclaim is preferred even for non-zero fragmentation during
an extreme shortage of memory
?
Robert Harris
--
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>
