Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp6606959ybv; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:56:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAs5fD9gwFH3pSxoptJ49x3bk6ma+RSexmEej/dxJnwHCTF0jh0hjaUqfU2Rj2bl53YApT X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7498:: with SMTP id t24mr11561387otk.290.1581551782572; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:56:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1581551782; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=NOQC8ltmUpw8s7Xd1AdLx9Q06x3XT11WCCRZMKHwytSjn6iBMR0gWJlg0OJ1ChJ8zo es0WveCWLePtykjYHd0l/jnqtwNF4o87EFLTomY6ZD5OFiVP43VQAnyYSyTtVuxwBH4f UzLbFTJeosAzOXNWzwy3dTi6LBfkWXR+tmNwioUE8kLI6bI1pYKYZurgTHAdFsDSSX4I zTyiQW/noU7HI34LeKoFx+WJvvUlGkf0I8lj569maEBrAR2qCgoxnFKqlJAKdffA4MiL xmYx4tGPzp3dTyrp9wxJhZr9/5G4LhQLVynyciYG87AVmh1CORdrjlZz3UA2wqyWMqTY /dAg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=xjEGtfpgIC8fOwxSvDJnA2RY8Y74QaabX9WQL+s93eg=; b=U9io3IN3UW5C/PVx2Vp8A8xxJ5s3KBGG2QPsKS8Xpqk7h2D8Gzyh++COCa1NB9TWBZ fxoOUv6CPZLCe801g59JYGyDpgkPrmbpJLQA/2WB+2ZJbDce839nhGDr3hdIa8JmBG4I w58KHZOacQ5IPlyr6RUb8z81xRHqhd5vahMNWlfcteADLO7eLHclejx1ArAj8MN9k8bP oqN9pIP7F1AvW+LccnrYPMlmVnHWSgcOQHq9BEeJntDkFlsiE+ZgxPtXEe/WJhh15Ovc 3t1Kmfa8XBAcp8MrzYbLeW9/zT298QMGb69Z5Di6WyLN0865uqw5JKMRb2dejj2OSCUm cL7w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l4si315719oib.170.2020.02.12.15.55.45; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:56:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729313AbgBLXza (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:55:30 -0500 Received: from outbound-smtp31.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.62]:52678 "EHLO outbound-smtp31.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727117AbgBLXza (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:55:30 -0500 Received: from mail.blacknight.com (unknown [81.17.254.11]) by outbound-smtp31.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C8ED0217 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:55:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 2395 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2020 23:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.18.57]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 12 Feb 2020 23:55:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:55:25 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Ivan Babrou Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel , kernel-team , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: Reclaim regression after 1c30844d2dfe Message-ID: <20200212235525.GU3466@techsingularity.net> References: <20200211101627.GJ3466@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:45:39PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote: > Here's a typical graph: https://imgur.com/a/n03x5yH > > * Green (numa0) and blue (numa1) for 4.19 > * Yellow (numa0) and orange (numa1) for 5.4 > > These downward slopes on numa0 on 5.4 are somewhat typical to the > worst case scenario. > > If I try to clean up data a bit from a bunch of machines, this is how > numa0 compares to numa1 with 1h average values of free memory above > 5GiB: > > * https://imgur.com/a/6T4rRzi > > I think it's safe to say that numa0 is much much worse, but I cannot > be 100% sure that numa1 is free from adverse effects, they may be just > hiding in the noise caused by rolling reboots. > Ok, while I expected node 0 to be worse in general, a runaway boost due to constant fragmentation would be a problem in general. In either case, the patch should reduce the damage. Is there any chance that the patch can be tested or would it be disruptive for you? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs