Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp51868pxb; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:25:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZhezIKqjPOLKA47DyIYDzOlUAyxiNoPYsKFHIzdZkYF6kGsGrGzzB+DzqJUbX6NE1+qtA X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7cc:: with SMTP id m12mr8368868ejc.386.1610724349633; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:25:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1610724349; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=O2mtQmie8njtnp6t8Wd/xZpbqVAaIPAglP9jI1ZlGQepGNvy/XCijZQa5jfrszjRK1 1Mf5ciXX5d30/VKyIGs+AtLRK21ecLRbKv5BacAuH9UoZuGSw+a0ZwzWXl5U4+ZxmglM 0C82FOkgOZckwHrVyIA+OEJDDHKXRhQ+QPU3BXQ1ypw7FfmfE6h+eGPB9f7KJdXRtgzj vwpdjUaABo95CBRcLFRzYM4FggwuviTqINbUti89ei6hH2RCF6F00P9yVZXlfK/PN8aP AZyFWi/HY7YFNe3wUKWeXTBB0ugdec9ghTecaLZ9KJYVyw/3VpSmh2lAMaYzV2wL0MIi a++A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject:dmarc-filter:sender:dkim-signature; bh=4kOGYe/Vih3B8yN/uLa3ELAeVENaldnb22XtkAgp3wM=; b=ZgOXXfeMkeT8WwqpENnvpsZuoTTCL/RgVJtiWMAAjCVjt2gHgVZ5J+k2eg/AS7iava TVRAkPIdGsFYA+Ybj195dluN/Jq+wH5Hl/vljrX1WsJtciHhK7KXVe0iNF+eoCJoo1Kz jgPrC1MZrkAqalZxliK3S6avjUof5lhjbXpXFnd3W0ZPVTQMoVvlH4Rerz95s/KxX6Va pGX9qYSGyOcyxdxnrvlXe1vbch2UkNDPZLlgfSb5D8D7oqHlq+sts+XT+cyVFU/jDdIk 2ppRdAcCYH4f5FfZvnl97r10OzkcA5rjAjXl4tDpVk2TbOE1kv2AU2eusO9J5bsRrW48 AeJA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.s=smtp header.b=RxjHPBhg; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h27si3836940ejl.529.2021.01.15.07.25.25; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.s=smtp header.b=RxjHPBhg; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728559AbhAOPWa (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:22:30 -0500 Received: from m43-15.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.15]:12973 "EHLO m43-15.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726182AbhAOPWa (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:22:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1610724125; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: Date: Message-ID: From: References: Cc: To: Subject: Sender; bh=4kOGYe/Vih3B8yN/uLa3ELAeVENaldnb22XtkAgp3wM=; b=RxjHPBhgkRM/Av9xcwRIVaq1fSw8/Yp6RxKZ+u4X/fSsaKuppidG20c8S6ynwCVUf9uiSjdc VNKCv8eM/ef++PDI73TgNsWU9iDeZkG0gZZG9V/DMSqIlWVykHuJHU1GmcrW1HX9q+m6LjCz q7547s84xspICPaIKBCKYRMX+2s= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.15 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI0MWYwYSIsICJsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n07.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 6001b2f51e3bf9b669671818 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:21:25 GMT Sender: charante=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1E2F0C43462; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:21:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=2.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_FAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from [192.168.29.110] (unknown [49.37.144.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: charante) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 238E1C43461; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:21:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 238E1C43461 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=charante@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/compaction: return proper state in should_proactive_compact_node To: Vlastimil Babka , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, khalid.aziz@oracle.com, ngupta@nitingupta.dev, vinmenon@codeaurora.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1610546586-18998-1-git-send-email-charante@codeaurora.org> From: Charan Teja Kalla Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:51:18 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thank you Vlastimil!! On 1/15/2021 6:15 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 1/13/21 3:03 PM, Charan Teja Reddy wrote: >> should_proactive_compact_node() returns true when sum of the >> fragmentation score of all the zones in the node is greater than the >> wmark_high of compaction which then triggers the proactive compaction >> that operates on the individual zones of the node. But proactive >> compaction runs on the zone only when the fragmentation score of the >> zone is greater than wmark_low(=wmark_high - 10). >> >> This means that the sum of the fragmentation scores of all the zones can >> exceed the wmark_high but individual zone scores can still be less than >> the wmark_low which makes the unnecessary trigger of the proactive >> compaction only to return doing nothing. >> >> Another issue with the return of proactive compaction with out even >> trying is its deferral. It is simply deferred for 1 << >> COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT if the scores across the proactive compaction is >> same, thinking that compaction didn't make any progress but in reality >> it didn't even try. With the delay between successive retries for >> proactive compaction is 500msec, it can result into the deferral for >> ~30sec with out even trying the proactive compaction. >> >> Test scenario is that: compaction_proactiveness=50 thus the wmark_low = >> 50 and wmark_high = 60. System have 2 zones(Normal and Movable) with >> sizes 5GB and 6GB respectively. After opening some apps on the android, >> the fragmentation scores of these zones are 47 and 49 respectively. >> Since the sum of these fragmentation scores are above the wmark_high >> which triggers the proactive compaction and there since the individual >> zone scores are below wmark_low, it returns without trying the >> compaction. As a result the fragmentation scores of the zones are still >> 47 and 49 which makes the existing logic to defer the compaction >> thinking that noprogress is made across the compaction. >> >> So, run the proactive compaction on the node zones only when atleast one >> of the zones fragmentation score is greater than wmark_low. This avoids >> the unnecessary deferral and retries of the compaction. >> >> Signed-off-by: Charan Teja Reddy > > Good catch about the problem, but I wonder if the solution could be better. > > fragmentation_score_node() is a weighted average of scores of all zones, that's > why fragmentation_score_zone() adjusts the score by zone_present/node_present. > > But when considering an individual zone in __compact_finished(), we shouldn't be > using fragmentation_score_zone() with the adjustment. We are not calculating the > weighted average for the whole node there, so it doesn't make sense to do the > adjustment by size. So if it simply took extfrag_for_order(...) as the score, it > should work as expected. In your example above, the score of each zone would be > above 60. If the weighted average is above wmark_high, then individual score > (not adjusted) of at least one zone has to be above wmark_high, and the extra > check using max() is not necessary. > > So I would split fragmentation_score_zone() to e.g. fragmentation_score_zone() > and fragmentation_score_zone_weighted() and call the latter only from > fragmentation_score_node(), and not from __compact_finished(). This suggestion looks good and much cleaner. Will raise V2 in couple of days. Thanks. > > Vlastimil > >> --- >> mm/compaction.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c >> index e5acb97..f7a772a 100644 >> --- a/mm/compaction.c >> +++ b/mm/compaction.c >> @@ -1964,6 +1964,26 @@ static unsigned int fragmentation_score_node(pg_data_t *pgdat) >> return score; >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Returns the maximum of fragmentation scores of zones in a node. This is >> + * used in taking the decission of whether to trigger the proactive compaction >> + * on the zones of this node. >> + */ >> +static unsigned int fragmentation_score_node_zones_max(pg_data_t *pgdat) >> +{ >> + int zoneid; >> + unsigned int max = 0; >> + >> + for (zoneid = 0; zoneid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zoneid++) { >> + struct zone *zone; >> + >> + zone = &pgdat->node_zones[zoneid]; >> + max = max_t(unsigned int, fragmentation_score_zone(zone), max); >> + } >> + >> + return max; >> +} >> + >> static unsigned int fragmentation_score_wmark(pg_data_t *pgdat, bool low) >> { >> unsigned int wmark_low; >> @@ -1979,13 +1999,16 @@ static unsigned int fragmentation_score_wmark(pg_data_t *pgdat, bool low) >> >> static bool should_proactive_compact_node(pg_data_t *pgdat) >> { >> - int wmark_high; >> + int wmark_low, wmark_high; >> >> if (!sysctl_compaction_proactiveness || kswapd_is_running(pgdat)) >> return false; >> >> wmark_high = fragmentation_score_wmark(pgdat, false); >> - return fragmentation_score_node(pgdat) > wmark_high; >> + wmark_low = fragmentation_score_wmark(pgdat, true); >> + >> + return fragmentation_score_node(pgdat) > wmark_high && >> + fragmentation_score_node_zones_max(pgdat) > wmark_low; >> } >> >> static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) >> > -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project