Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Kaiyang Zhao <kaiyang2@cs.cmu.edu>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 20/26] mm: vmscan: use compaction_suitable() check
 in kswapd
References: <20230418191313.268131-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
        <20230418191313.268131-21-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
        <87a5ywfyeb.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
        <20230425142641.GA17132@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:30:23 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20230425142641.GA17132@cmpxchg.org> (Johannes Weiner's message
        of "Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:26:41 -0400")
Message-ID: <87o7nbe8gg.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Precedence: bulk

Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 11:12:28AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Kswapd currently bails on higher-order allocations with an open-coded
>> > check for whether it's reclaimed the compaction gap.
>> >
>> > compaction_suitable() is the customary interface to coordinate reclaim
>> > with compaction.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> > ---
>> >  mm/vmscan.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
>> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > index ee8c8ca2e7b5..723705b9e4d9 100644
>> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> > @@ -6872,12 +6872,18 @@ static bool pgdat_balanced(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int highest_zoneidx)
>> >  		if (!managed_zone(zone))
>> >  			continue;
>> >  
>> > +		/* Allocation can succeed in any zone, done */
>> >  		if (sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING)
>> >  			mark = wmark_pages(zone, WMARK_PROMO);
>> >  		else
>> >  			mark = high_wmark_pages(zone);
>> >  		if (zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order, mark, highest_zoneidx))
>> >  			return true;
>> > +
>> > +		/* Allocation can't succeed, but enough order-0 to compact */
>> > +		if (compaction_suitable(zone, order,
>> > +					highest_zoneidx) == COMPACT_CONTINUE)
>> > +			return true;
>> 
>> Should we check the following first?
>> 
>>         order > 0 && zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, 0, mark, highest_zoneidx)
>
> That's what compaction_suitable() does. It checks whether there are
> enough migration targets for compaction (COMPACT_CONTINUE) or whether
> reclaim needs to do some more work (COMPACT_SKIPPED).

Yes.  And I found that the watermark used in compaction_suitable() is
low_wmark_pages() or min_wmark_pages(), which doesn't match the
watermark here.  Or did I miss something?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying