On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:07:20 +0800 Han Pingtian <hanpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> min_free_kbytes may be raised during THP's initialization. Sometimes,
> this will change the value being set by user. Showing message will
> clarify this confusion.
>
> Only show this message when changing the value set by user according to
> Michal Hocko's suggestion.
>
> Showing the old value of min_free_kbytes according to Dave Hansen's
> suggestion. This will give user the chance to restore old value of
> min_free_kbytes.
>
This is all a bit nasty, isn't it? THP goes and alters min_free_kbytes
to improve its own reliability, but min_free_kbytes is also
user-modifiable. And over many years we have trained a *lot* of users
to alter min_free_kbytes. Often to prevent nasty page allocation
failure warnings from net drivers.
So there are probably quite a lot of people out there who are manually
rubbing out THP's efforts. And there may also be people who are
setting min_free_kbytes to a value which is unnecessarily high for more
recent kernels.
I don't know what to do about this mess though :(
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -130,8 +130,14 @@ static int set_recommended_min_free_kbytes(void)
> (unsigned long) nr_free_buffer_pages() / 20);
> recommended_min <<= (PAGE_SHIFT-10);
>
> - if (recommended_min > min_free_kbytes)
> + if (recommended_min > min_free_kbytes) {
> + if (user_min_free_kbytes >= 0)
> + pr_info("raising min_free_kbytes from %d to %lu "
> + "to help transparent hugepage allocations\n",
> + min_free_kbytes, recommended_min);
hm, recommended_min shouldn't have had long type. Oh well, we've done
worse things.
> min_free_kbytes = recommended_min;
> + }
> setup_per_zone_wmarks();
> return 0;
> }
--
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>