On (16/09/07 23:58), Goswin von Brederlow didst pronounce: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mel Gorman) writes: > > > On (15/09/07 14:14), Goswin von Brederlow didst pronounce: > >> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:12:26 +0200 Jörn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> While I agree with your concern, those numbers are quite silly. The > >> >> chances of 99.8% of pages being free and the remaining 0.2% being > >> >> perfectly spread across all 2MB large_pages are lower than those of SHA1 > >> >> creating a collision. > >> > > >> > Actually it'd be pretty easy to craft an application which allocates > >> > seven > >> > pages for pagecache, then one for <something>, then seven for pagecache, > >> > then > >> > one for <something>, etc. > >> > > >> > I've had test apps which do that sort of thing accidentally. The result > >> > wasn't pretty. > >> > >> Except that the applications 7 pages are movable and the <something> > >> would have to be unmovable. And then they should not share the same > >> memory region. At least they should never be allowed to interleave in > >> such a pattern on a larger scale. > >> > > > > It is actually really easy to force regions to never share. At the > > moment, there is a fallback list that determines a preference for what > > block to mix. > > > > The reason why this isn't enforced is the cost of moving. On x86 and > > x86_64, a block of interest is usually 2MB or 4MB. Clearing out one of > > those pages to prevent any mixing would be bad enough. On PowerPC, it's > > potentially 16MB. On IA64, it's 1GB. > > > > As this was fragmentation avoidance, not guarantees, the decision was > > made to not strictly enforce the types of pages within a block as the > > cost cannot be made back unless the system was making agressive use of > > large pages. This is not the case with Linux. > > I don't say the group should never be mixed. The movable objects could > be moved out on demand. If 64k get allocated then up to 64k get > moved.
This type of action makes sense in the context of Andrea's approach and large blocks. I don't think it makes sense today to do it in the general case, at least not yet. > That would reduce the impact as the kernel does not hang while > it moves 2MB or even 1GB. It also allows objects to be freed and the > space reused in the unmovable and mixed groups. There could also be a > certain number or percentage of mixed groupd be allowed to further > increase the chance of movable objects freeing themself from mixed > groups. > > But when you already have say 10% of the ram in mixed groups then it > is a sign the external fragmentation happens and some time should be > spend on moving movable objects. > I'll play around with it on the side and see what sort of results I get. I won't be pushing anything any time soon in relation to this though. For now, I don't intend to fiddle more with grouping pages by mobility for something that may or may not be of benefit to a feature that hasn't been widely tested with what exists today. > >> The only way a fragmentation catastroph can be (proovable) avoided is > >> by having so few unmovable objects that size + max waste << ram > >> size. The smaller the better. Allowing movable and unmovable objects > >> to mix means that max waste goes way up. In your example waste would > >> be 7*size. With 2MB uper order limit it would be 511*size. > >> > >> I keep coming back to the fact that movable objects should be moved > >> out of the way for unmovable ones. Anything else just allows > >> fragmentation to build up. > >> > > > > This is easily achieved, just really really expensive because of the > > amount of copying that would have to take place. It would also compel > > that min_free_kbytes be at least one free PAGEBLOCK_NR_PAGES and likely > > MIGRATE_TYPES * PAGEBLOCK_NR_PAGES to reduce excessive copying. That is > > a lot of free memory to keep around which is why fragmentation avoidance > > doesn't do it. > > In your sample graphics you had 1152 groups. Reserving a few of those > doesnt sound too bad. No, which on those systems, I would suggest setting min_free_kbytes to a higher value. Doesn't work as well on IA-64. > And how many migrate types do we talk about. > So > far we only had movable and unmovable. Movable, unmovable, reclaimable and reserve in the current incarnation of grouping pages by mobility. > I would split unmovable into > short term (caches, I/O pages) and long term (task structures, > dentries). Mostly done as you suggest already. Dentry are considered reclaimable, not long-lived though and are grouped with things like inode caches for example. > Reserving 6 groups for schort term unmovable and long term > unmovable would be 1% of ram in your situation. > More groups = more cost although very easy to add them. A mixed type used to exist but was removed again because it couldn't be proved to be useful at the time. > Maybe instead of reserving one could say that you can have up to 6 > groups of space And if the groups are 1GB in size? I tried something like this already. It didn't work out well at the time although I could revisit. > not used by unmovable objects before aggressive moving > starts. I don't quite see why you NEED reserving as long as there is > enough space free alltogether in case something needs moving. hence, increase min_free_kbytes. > 1 group > worth of space free might be plenty to move stuff too. Note that all > the virtual pages can be stuffed in every little free space there is > and reassembled by the MMU. There is no space lost there. > What you suggest sounds similar to having a type MIGRATE_MIXED where you allocate from when the preferred lists are full. It became a sizing problem that never really worked out. As I said, I can try again. > But until one tries one can't say. > > MfG > Goswin > > PS: How do allocations pick groups? Using GFP flags to identify the type. > Could one use the oldest group > dedicated to each MIGRATE_TYPE? Age is difficult to determine so probably not. > Or lowest address for unmovable and > highest address for movable? Something to better keep the two out of > each other way. We bias the location of unmovable and reclaimable allocations already. It's not done for movable because it wasn't necessary (as they are easily reclaimed or moved anyway). -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
