From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753299AbcEPJwk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 05:52:40 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:36235 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752966AbcEPJwj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 May 2016 05:52:39 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:52:36 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 12/13] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct
 compaction priority
Message-ID: <20160516095236.GF23146@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1462865763-22084-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <1462865763-22084-13-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20160513141539.GR20141@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <57397760.4060407@suse.cz>
 <20160516081439.GD23146@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <5739929C.5000500@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5739929C.5000500@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon 16-05-16 11:27:56, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 10:14 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-05-16 09:31:44, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > > Also my understanding of the initial compaction priorities is to lower the
> > > latency if fragmentation is just light and there's enough memory. Once we
> > > start struggling, I don't see much point in not switching to the full
> > > compaction priority quickly.
> > 
> > That is true but why to compact when there are high order pages and they
> > are just hidden by the watermark check.
> 
> Compaction should skip such zone regardless of priority.

The point I've tried to raise is that we shouldn't conflate the purpose
of the two. The reclaim is here primarily to get us over the watermarks
while compaction is here to form high order pages. If we get both
together the distinction is blured which, I believe, will lead to more
complicated code in the end. I might be wrong here of course but let's
try to have compaction as much wmark check free as possible.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs