From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751507AbdBWQB2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:01:28 -0500 Received: from outbound-smtp09.blacknight.com ([46.22.139.14]:48310 "EHLO outbound-smtp09.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751110AbdBWQB1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:01:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:01:19 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] try to reduce fragmenting fallbacks Message-ID: <20170223160119.crigcfmfzphxirh6@techsingularity.net> References: <20170210172343.30283-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20170213110701.vb4e6zrwhwliwm7k@techsingularity.net> <19bcb38a-5dde-24d5-cf1d-50683d5ef4d9@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19bcb38a-5dde-24d5-cf1d-50683d5ef4d9@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:30:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot > > make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Conceptually they > > seem sound but they are much more far reaching than the rest of the > > series. > > > > It would be nice if patches 1-8 could be treated in isolation with data > > on the number of extfrag events triggered, time spent in compaction and > > the success rate. Patches 9 and 10 are tricy enough that they would need > > data per patch where as patches 1-8 should be ok with data gathered for > > the whole series. > > Ok let's try again with a fresh subthread after fixing automation and > postprocessing... > > > > To sum up, patches 1-8 look OK to me. Patch 9 looks also very promising, but > there's danger of increased allocation latencies due to the forced compaction. > Patch 10 has either implementation bugs or there's some unforeseen consequence > of its design. > I don't have anything useful to add other than the figures for patches 1-8 look good and the fact that fragmenting events that misplace unmovable allocations is welcome. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs