On 02/03/2015 06:07 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
2015-02-04 0:51 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>:
Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from now. So to clarify,
let's consider
1. single compaction run - single invocation of compact_zone(). It can start
from cached pfn's from previous run, or zone boundaries (or pivot, after this
series), and terminate with scanners meeting or not meeting.
2. full zone compaction - consists one or more compaction runs, where the first
run starts at boundaries (pivot). It ends when scanners meet -
compact_finished() returns COMPACT_COMPLETE
3. compaction after full defer cycle - this is full zone compaction, where
compaction_restarting() returns true in its first run
My understanding is that you think pivot changing occurs after each full zone
compaction (definition 2), but in fact it occurs only each defer cycle
(definition 3). See patch 5 for detailed reasoning. I don't think it's short
term. It means full zone compactions (def 2) already failed many times and then
was deferred for further time, using the same unchanged pivot.
Ah... thanks for clarifying. I actually think pivot changing occurs at
definition 2
as you guess. :)
Great it's clarified :)
I think any of the alternatives you suggested below where migrate scanner
processes whole zone during full zone compaction (2), would necessarily result
in shorter-term back and forth migration than this scheme. On the other hand,
the pivot changing proposed here might be too long-term. But it's a first
attempt, and the frequency can be further tuned.
Yes, your proposal would be less problematic on back and forth problem than
my suggestion.
Hmm...nevertheless, I can't completely agree with pivot approach.
I'd like to remove dependency of migrate scanner and free scanner such as
termination criteria at this chance. Meeting position of both scanner is roughly
Well at some point compaction should terminate if it scanned the whole
zone, and failed. How else to check that than using the scanner positions?
determined by on amount of free memory in the zone. If 200 MB is free in
the zone, migrate scanner can scan at maximum 200 MB from the start pfn
of the pivot. Without changing pivot quickly, we can scan only
this region regardless zone size so it cause bad effect to high order
allocation for a long time.
In stress-highalloc test, it doesn't matter since we try to attempt a lot of
allocations. This bad effect would not appear easily. Although middle of
allocation attempts are failed, latter attempts would succeed
since pivot would be changed in the middle of attempts.
OK, that might be true. It's not a perfect benchmark.
But, in real world scenario, all allocation attempts are precise and
it'd be better
first come high order allocation request to succeed and this is another problem
than allocation success rate in stress-highalloc test. To accomplish it, we
need to change pivot as soon as possible. Without it, we could miss some
precise allocation attempt until pivot is changed. For this purpose, we should
remove defer logic or change it more loosely and then, resetting pivot would
occur soon so we could encounter back and forth problem frequently.
It seems to me that you can't have both the "migration scanner should
try scanning whole zone during single compaction (or during relatively
few attempts)" and "we shouldn't migrate pages that we have just
(relatively recently) migrated", in any scheme including the two you
proposed in previous mail. These features just go against each other.
In any scheme you should divide the zone between part that's scanned for
pages to migrate from, and part that scanned for free pages as migration
targets. If you don't divide, then you end up migrating back and forth
instantly, which would be bad.
So what happens after you don't have any free pages in the part that was
for the free scanner (this is what happen in current scheme when
scanners meet). If you wanted to continue with the migration scanner,
the only free pages are in the part which the migration scanner just
processed. And funnily enough, the pivot changing scheme will put the
free scanner just in the position to scan this part. But doing that
immediately could mean excessive migration.
Your alternative scheme where free scanner follows the migration scanner
at some distance is not very different in this sense. If you manage to
tune the distance properly, you will also scan for free pages the part
that was just processed by the migration scanner. It might be more
efficient in that you don't rescan the part that the migration scanner
didn't reach both before and after pivot change. But fundamentally, it
means migrating pages that were recently migrated.
Therefore, it's better to change compaction logic more fundamentally.
Maybe it's indeed better to excessively migrate than keep rescanning the
same pageblocks and then defer compaction. But we shouldn't forget that
immediate success rate is not the only criteria. We should also keep the
overhead sane. That's why there's pageblock suitability bitfield,
deferred compaction etc, which I'm not sure how those would fit into the
"continuously progressing migration scanner" scheme.
So what I think should precede such increase in compact aggressivity:
- on direct compaction, only try migrate when successfully isolated all
pages needed for merging the desired order page. I've had such patch
already in one series last year, but it affected the anti-fragmentation
effects of compaction.
- no more THP page faults (also for other good reasons), leave
collapsing to khugepaged, or rather task_work, leaving only the
expensive sync compaction to dedicated per-node daemons. These should
hopefully solve the anti-fragmentation issue as well.
Thanks.
--
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>