Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific > >>issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by > >>making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not >

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 09/30/2015 04:16 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote: So what do you suggest instead? A fixed number, some other heuristic? You have pushed several times now for the series to focus on the latency of standard high-order allocations but again I will say that it is outside the scope of this series. If you

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 09/30/2015 10:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > The

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 09/30/2015 10:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : >> > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always >> > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : >> > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always >> >

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 09/30/2015 10:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : The primary purpose of watermarks is to

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 09/30/2015 10:51 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mel Gorman >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: 2015-08-24

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 09/30/2015 04:16 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote: So what do you suggest instead? A fixed number, some other heuristic? You have pushed several times now for the series to focus on the latency of standard high-order allocations but again I will say that it is outside the scope of this series. If you

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>Does a better job regarding what exactly? It does fix the CMA-specific > >>issue, but so does this patch - without affecting allocation fastpaths by > >>making them update another counter. But the issues discussed here are not >

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:56:21PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 01:39:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:56:21PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 01:39:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > > > The primary purpose of

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 01:39:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > > > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 01:39:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > > > make forward

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > > These assume that order-0 allocations

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > > These

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for > forward progress. > > High-order

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

2015-08-24 21:30 GMT+09:00 Mel Gorman : > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for > forward

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:10:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 24-08-15 13:30:15, Mel Gorman wrote: > > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > > These assume that order-0

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Mon 24-08-15 13:30:15, Mel Gorman wrote: > The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always > make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). > These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for > forward progress. > > High-order

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Mon 24-08-15 13:30:15, Mel Gorman wrote: The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for forward progress. High-order

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:10:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 24-08-15 13:30:15, Mel Gorman wrote: The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:42:23PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >@@ -2309,22 +2311,30 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, > >unsigned int order, > > #ifdef CONFIG_CMA > > /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */ > > if (!(alloc_flags &

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 08/24/2015 02:30 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for forward progress. High-order watermarks

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:42:23PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: @@ -2309,22 +2311,30 @@ static bool __zone_watermark_ok(struct zone *z, unsigned int order, #ifdef CONFIG_CMA /* If allocation can't use CMA areas don't use free CMA pages */ if (!(alloc_flags ALLOC_CMA)) -

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

On 08/24/2015 02:30 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for forward progress. High-order watermarks

[PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for forward progress. High-order watermarks serve a different purpose. Kswapd had no

[PATCH 12/12] mm, page_alloc: Only enforce watermarks for order-0 allocations

The primary purpose of watermarks is to ensure that reclaim can always make forward progress in PF_MEMALLOC context (kswapd and direct reclaim). These assume that order-0 allocations are all that is necessary for forward progress. High-order watermarks serve a different purpose. Kswapd had no