On 09/06/2018 01:10 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> We can and should think about this much more but I would like to have >> this regression closed. So can we address GFP_THISNODE part first and >> build more complex solution on top? >> >> Is there any objection to my patch which does the similar thing to your >> patch v2 in a different location? > > Similar but not the same. It fixes the madvise case, but I wonder about > the no-madvise defrag=defer case, where Zi Yan reports it still causes > swapping. Ah, but that should be the same with Andrea's variant 2) patch. There should only be difference with defrag=always, which is direct reclaim with __GFP_NORETRY, Andrea's patch would drop __GFP_THISNODE and your not. Maybe Zi Yan can do the same kind of tests with Andrea's patch [1] to confirm? [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153476267026951
