| Message ID | 20230805110711.2975149-7-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fixes and cleanups to compaction | expand |
On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is > not proper name anymore. > As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that > order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. > > Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> > --- > mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c > index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 > --- a/mm/compaction.c > +++ b/mm/compaction.c > @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) > } > > /* > - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via > - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory > + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order > */ > -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) > +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could. > { > - return order == -1; > + return order != -1; > } > > /* > @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) > goto out; > } > > - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) > + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) > return COMPACT_CONTINUE; > > /* > @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) > > cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); > > - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { > + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { > unsigned long watermark; > > /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */
on 8/15/2023 4:58 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >> We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is >> not proper name anymore. >> As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that >> order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> >> --- >> mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c >> index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 >> --- a/mm/compaction.c >> +++ b/mm/compaction.c >> @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) >> } >> /* >> - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via >> - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >> + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order >> */ >> -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) >> +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) > > I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could. > Yes, I agree with this, but name and comment of is_via_compact_memory may mislead reader that order == -1 is equivalent to compaction from /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory. Actually, we have several approaches to trigger compaction with order == -1: 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact 3. via proactive compact Instead of indicate compaction is tirggerred by compact_memocy or anything, order == -1 implies if compaction is triggerrred to meet allocation with high order and we will stop compaction if allocation with target order will success. >> { >> - return order == -1; >> + return order != -1; >> } >> /* >> @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) >> goto out; >> } >> - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) >> + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) >> return COMPACT_CONTINUE; >> /* >> @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) >> cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); >> - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { >> + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { >> unsigned long watermark; >> /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */ >
On 8/15/2023 8:04 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > on 8/15/2023 4:58 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>> We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is >>> not proper name anymore. >>> As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that >>> order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> >>> --- >>> mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c >>> index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 >>> --- a/mm/compaction.c >>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c >>> @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) >>> } >>> /* >>> - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via >>> - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >>> + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order >>> */ >>> -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) >>> +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) >> >> I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could. >> > Yes, I agree with this, but name and comment of is_via_compact_memory may > mislead reader that order == -1 is equivalent to compaction from > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory. > Actually, we have several approaches to trigger compaction with order == -1: > 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory > 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact > 3. via proactive compact They can all be called proactive compaction. > > Instead of indicate compaction is tirggerred by compact_memocy or anything, > order == -1 implies if compaction is triggerrred to meet allocation with high > order and we will stop compaction if allocation with target order will success. IMO, the is_via_compact_memory() function helps people better distinguish the compaction logic we have under direct compaction or kcompactd compaction, while proactive compaction does not concern itself with these details. But compaction_with_allocation_order() will make me just wonder why we should compare with -1. So I don't think this patch is worth it, but as you said above, we can add more comments to make it more clear. >>> { >>> - return order == -1; >>> + return order != -1; >>> } >>> /* >>> @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) >>> goto out; >>> } >>> - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) >>> + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) >>> return COMPACT_CONTINUE; >>> /* >>> @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) >>> cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); >>> - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { >>> + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { >>> unsigned long watermark; >>> /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */ >>
on 8/19/2023 8:14 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > On 8/15/2023 8:04 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >> >> >> on 8/15/2023 4:58 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>>> We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is >>>> not proper name anymore. >>>> As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that >>>> order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> >>>> --- >>>> mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c >>>> index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c >>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c >>>> @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) >>>> } >>>> /* >>>> - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via >>>> - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >>>> + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order >>>> */ >>>> -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) >>>> +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) >>> >>> I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could. >>> >> Yes, I agree with this, but name and comment of is_via_compact_memory may >> mislead reader that order == -1 is equivalent to compaction from >> /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory. >> Actually, we have several approaches to trigger compaction with order == -1: >> 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >> 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact >> 3. via proactive compact > > They can all be called proactive compaction. I have considered rename to is_proactive_compaction. But "proactive compaction" in comments of compaction.c mostly implies to compaction triggerred from /proc/sys/vm/compaction_proactiveness. So "proactive compaction" itself looks ambiguous... > >> >> Instead of indicate compaction is tirggerred by compact_memocy or anything, >> order == -1 implies if compaction is triggerrred to meet allocation with high >> order and we will stop compaction if allocation with target order will success. > > IMO, the is_via_compact_memory() function helps people better distinguish the compaction logic we have under direct compaction or kcompactd compaction, while proactive compaction does not concern itself with these details. But compaction_with_allocation_order() will make me just wonder why we should compare with -1. So I don't think this patch is worth it, but as you said above, we can add more comments to make it more clear. > Sure, no insistant on this. Is it looks good to you just change comment of is_via_compact_memory to: We need do compaction proactively with order == -1 order == -1 is expected for proactive compaction via: 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact 3. /proc/sys/vm/compaction_proactiveness >>>> { >>>> - return order == -1; >>>> + return order != -1; >>>> } >>>> /* >>>> @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) >>>> goto out; >>>> } >>>> - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) >>>> + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) >>>> return COMPACT_CONTINUE; >>>> /* >>>> @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) >>>> cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); >>>> - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { >>>> + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { >>>> unsigned long watermark; >>>> /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */ >>> > >
On 8/22/2023 9:51 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > on 8/19/2023 8:14 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 8/15/2023 8:04 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>> >>> >>> on 8/15/2023 4:58 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>>>> We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is >>>>> not proper name anymore. >>>>> As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that >>>>> order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c >>>>> index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 >>>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c >>>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c >>>>> @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) >>>>> } >>>>> /* >>>>> - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via >>>>> - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >>>>> + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order >>>>> */ >>>>> -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) >>>>> +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) >>>> >>>> I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could. >>>> >>> Yes, I agree with this, but name and comment of is_via_compact_memory may >>> mislead reader that order == -1 is equivalent to compaction from >>> /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory. >>> Actually, we have several approaches to trigger compaction with order == -1: >>> 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory >>> 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact >>> 3. via proactive compact >> >> They can all be called proactive compaction. > I have considered rename to is_proactive_compaction. But "proactive compaction" > in comments of compaction.c mostly implies to compaction triggerred from > /proc/sys/vm/compaction_proactiveness. So "proactive compaction" itself looks > ambiguous... >> >>> >>> Instead of indicate compaction is tirggerred by compact_memocy or anything, >>> order == -1 implies if compaction is triggerrred to meet allocation with high >>> order and we will stop compaction if allocation with target order will success. >> >> IMO, the is_via_compact_memory() function helps people better distinguish the compaction logic we have under direct compaction or kcompactd compaction, while proactive compaction does not concern itself with these details. But compaction_with_allocation_order() will make me just wonder why we should compare with -1. So I don't think this patch is worth it, but as you said above, we can add more comments to make it more clear. >> > Sure, no insistant on this. > Is it looks good to you just change comment of is_via_compact_memory to: > We need do compaction proactively with order == -1 > order == -1 is expected for proactive compaction via: > 1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory > 2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact > 3. /proc/sys/vm/compaction_proactiveness Look good to me. Thanks. > >>>>> { >>>>> - return order == -1; >>>>> + return order != -1; >>>>> } >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) >>>>> goto out; >>>>> } >>>>> - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) >>>>> + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) >>>>> return COMPACT_CONTINUE; >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) >>>>> cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); >>>>> - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { >>>>> + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { >>>>> unsigned long watermark; >>>>> /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */ >>>> >> >>
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644 --- a/mm/compaction.c +++ b/mm/compaction.c @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc) } /* - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order */ -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order) +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order) { - return order == -1; + return order != -1; } /* @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc) goto out; } - if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) + if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) return COMPACT_CONTINUE; /* @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc) cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask); - if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) { + if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) { unsigned long watermark; /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */
We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is not proper name anymore. As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order. Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> --- mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)