From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82BCC74A35 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B562B2087F for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1562787848; bh=eHGI2UH/1bx+uOYu8VQv93m0Mv4AyHid8CuZx3p8J24=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=nitVns8S2hM6aR77czAfNxCfWy+TuAUI2LfjId1SO5F8yjO7S9FzdnjfJVqP5+1dz BhUM4A5mahE3iD14NaP6Q7n+E5idGGZbBcLUYPIVFSbG1Blc2wqBlIzqyLpYapVVLS PJqiGCp/B6OX6KJTaQFUw/74ioUk6mbHymyDd+f4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728049AbfGJToH (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:07 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46482 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727618AbfGJToH (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:44:07 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15100AC37; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:44:03 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Mike Kravetz Cc: Hillf Danton , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel , Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded? Message-ID: <20190710194403.GR29695@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <80036eed-993d-1d24-7ab6-e495f01b1caa@oracle.com> <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <885afb7b-f5be-590a-00c8-a24d2bc65f37@oracle.com> 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 10-07-19 11:42:40, Mike Kravetz wrote: [...] > As Michal suggested, I'm going to do some testing to see what impact > dropping the __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL flag for these huge page allocations > will have on the number of pages allocated. Just to clarify. I didn't mean to drop __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL from the allocation request. I meant to drop the special casing of the flag in should_continue_reclaim. I really have hard time to argue for this special casing TBH. The flag is meant to retry harder but that shouldn't be reduced to a single reclaim attempt because that alone doesn't really help much with the high order allocation. It is more about compaction to be retried harder. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs