On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:15 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:57:42PM +0900, Wonhyuk Yang wrote:
> > Because of 'min(1, ...)', fast_isolate_freepages set 'limit'
> > to 0 or 1. This takes away the opportunities of find candinate
> > pages. Also, even if 'limit' reaches zero, it scan once. It is
> > not consistent. So, modify the minimum value of 'limit' to 1.
> >
>
> The changelog could do with a little polish.
>
> In addition, what were the effects of this and what load did you use to
> evaluate it? While your patch is mostly correct, it has the potential
> side-effect of increasing system CPU usage in some cases and I'm curious
> to hear what you observed. Minimally it is worth noting in the changelog
> that there is a risk of increasing system CPU usage but that there are
> advantages too. Describe them in the changelog in case a regression
> bisects to your patch.
I tested it on the thpscale and the results are as follows.
5.12
5.12
vanilla
patched
Amean fault-both-1 598.15 ( 0.00%) 592.56 ( 0.93%)
Amean fault-both-3 1494.47 ( 0.00%) 1514.35 ( -1.33%)
Amean fault-both-5 2519.48 ( 0.00%) 2471.76 ( 1.89%)
Amean fault-both-7 3173.85 ( 0.00%) 3079.19 ( 2.98%)
Amean fault-both-12 8063.83 ( 0.00%) 7858.29 ( 2.55%)
Amean fault-both-18 8781.20 ( 0.00%) 7827.70 * 10.86%*
Amean fault-both-24 12576.44 ( 0.00%) 12250.20 ( 2.59%)
Amean fault-both-30 18503.27 ( 0.00%) 17528.11 * 5.27%*
Amean fault-both-32 16133.69 ( 0.00%) 13874.24 * 14.00%*
5.12 5.12
vanilla patched
Ops Compaction migrate scanned 6547133.00 5963901.00
Ops Compaction free scanned 32452453.00 26609101.00
One thing to worry about is that the results are very different every time.
Is there any precise way to measure this patch?
> > @@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ fast_isolate_freepages(struct compact_control *cc)
> > high_pfn = pfn;
> >
> > /* Shorten the scan if a candidate is found */
> > - limit >>= 1;
> > + limit = max(1U, limit >> 1);
> > }
> >
> > if (order_scanned >= limit)
>
> This hunk should be dropped. Once a candidate free page has been
> identified, it's ok to decay the limit to 0. This hunk introduces a risk
> of increasing system CPU usage unnecessarily.
Yes, you are right. I'll take your opinion.
> > @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ fast_isolate_freepages(struct compact_control *cc)
> > * to freelist_scan_limit.
> > */
> > if (order_scanned >= limit)
> > - limit = min(1U, limit >> 1);
> > + limit = max(1U, limit >> 1);
> > }
>
> The change is fine but I have a minor nitpick that you are free to
> ignore. The comment above this block has a typo.
>
> s/scan ig related/scan is related/
>
> Ordinarily patches to fix spelling are ignored but you are altering this
> area anyway and it's helpful to see the full comment when reviewing this
> patch. I think it would be harmless to fix the spelling in the context
> of this patch.
Okay, I'll fix this as well.
Thank you for your review.
