On 6/5/19 6:05 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 6/5/19 12:58 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 6/5/19 1:30 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> Hmm I guess we didn't expect compaction_withdrawn() to be so >> consistently returned. Do you know what value of compact_result is there >> in your test? > > Added some instrumentation to record values and ran test, > > 557904 Total > > 549186 COMPACT_DEFERRED Retrying mindlessly with compaction deferred sounds definitely wrong, I'll try to look at it. Thanks. > 8718 COMPACT_PARTIAL_SKIPPED > > Do note that this is not my biggest problem with these allocations. That is > should_continue_reclaim returning true more often that in should. Still > trying to get more info on that. This was just something curious I also > discovered. >
