Re: [PATCH -mm v2] mm: have order > 0 compaction start off where it left

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/28/2012 07:27 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:

index 7ea259d..2668b77 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -422,6 +422,17 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct zone *zone,
  					pfn -= pageblock_nr_pages) {
  		unsigned long isolated;

+		/*
+		 * Skip ahead if another thread is compacting in the area
+		 * simultaneously. If we wrapped around, we can only skip
+		 * ahead if zone->compact_cached_free_pfn also wrapped to
+		 * above our starting point.
+		 */
+		if (cc->order>  0&&  (!cc->wrapped ||


So if (partial_compaction(cc)&&  ... ) or if (!full_compaction(cc)&&   ...

I am not sure that we want to abstract away what is happening
here.  We also are quite explicit with the meaning of cc->order
in compact_finished and other places in the compaction code.

+				      zone->compact_cached_free_pfn>
+				      cc->start_free_pfn))
+			pfn = min(pfn, zone->compact_cached_free_pfn);


The pfn can be where migrate_pfn below?
I mean we need this?

if (pfn<= low_pfn)
	goto out;

That is a good point. I guess there is a small possibility that
another compaction thread is below us with cc->free_pfn and
cc->migrate_pfn, and we just inherited its cc->free_pfn via
zone->compact_cached_free_pfn, bringing us to below our own
cc->migrate_pfn.

Given that this was already possible with parallel compaction
in the past, I am not sure how important it is. It could result
in wasting a little bit of CPU, but your fix for it looks easy
enough.

Mel, any downside to compaction bailing (well, wrapping around)
a little earlier, like Minchan suggested?

@@ -463,6 +474,8 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct zone *zone,
  		 */
  		if (isolated)
  			high_pfn = max(high_pfn, pfn);
+		if (cc->order>  0)
+			zone->compact_cached_free_pfn = high_pfn;


Why do we cache high_pfn instead of pfn?

Reading the code, because we may not have isolated every
possible free page from this memory block.  The same reason
cc->free_pfn is set to high_pfn right before the function
exits.

If we can't isolate any page, compact_cached_free_pfn would become low_pfn.
I expect it's not what you want.

I guess we should only cache the value of high_pfn if
we isolated some pages?  In other words, this:

	if (isolated) {
		high_pfn = max(high_pfn, pfn);
		if (cc->order > 0)
			zone->compact_cached_free_pfn = high_pfn;
	}


--
All rights reversed

--
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]