On Thu 06-09-18 13:16:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > 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? Yes, that is the only difference and that is why I've said those patches are mostly similar. I do not want to touch defrag=always case because this one has always been stall prone and we have replaced it as a default just because of that. We should discuss what should be done with that case separately IMHO. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
