On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:41:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hey Mel,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:47:27AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:02:53PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > If the allocation order is not high, direct compaction does nothing.
> > > Can we skip compaction here if order drops to zero?
> > >
> >
> > If the allocation order is not high then
> >
> > pgdat_needs_compaction == (order > 0) == false == no calling compact_pdatt
> >
> > In the case where order is reset to 0 due to fragmentation then it does
> > call compact_pgdat but it does no work due to the cc->order check in
> > __compact_pgdat.
> >
>
> I am looking at mmotm-2013-08-07-16-55 but couldn't find cc->order
> check right before compact_zone in __comact_pgdat.
> Could you pinpoint code piece?
>
Thanks, I screwed up as that check happens too late. However, it still
ends up not mattering because it does this
compact_pgdat
-> __compact_pgdat
-> compact_zone
-> compaction_suitable
For order == 0, compaction_suitable will return either COMPACT_SKIPPED
(if the watermarks are not met) and COMPACT_PARTIAL otherwise. Either
way, compaction doesn't run.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>