From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] mm,page_alloc: Move the short sleep to should_reclaim_retry()
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 20:00:21 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1528369223-7571-2-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1528369223-7571-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
should_reclaim_retry() should be a natural reschedule point. PF_WQ_WORKER
is a special case which needs a stronger rescheduling policy. Doing that
unconditionally seems more straightforward than depending on a zone being
a good candidate for a further reclaim.
Thus, move the short sleep when we are waiting for the owner of oom_lock
(which coincidentally also serves as a guaranteed sleep for PF_WQ_WORKER
threads) to should_reclaim_retry(). Note that it is not evaluated that
whether there is negative side effect with this change. We need to test
both real and artificial workloads for evaluation. You can compare with
and without this patch if you noticed something unexpected.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index e90f152..210a476 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3914,6 +3914,7 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
+ bool ret = false;
/*
* Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
@@ -3977,25 +3978,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
}
}
- /*
- * Memory allocation/reclaim might be called from a WQ
- * context and the current implementation of the WQ
- * concurrency control doesn't recognize that
- * a particular WQ is congested if the worker thread is
- * looping without ever sleeping. Therefore we have to
- * do a short sleep here rather than calling
- * cond_resched().
- */
- if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
- schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
- else
- cond_resched();
-
- return true;
+ ret = true;
+ goto out;
}
}
- return false;
+out:
+ /*
+ * Memory allocation/reclaim might be called from a WQ
+ * context and the current implementation of the WQ
+ * concurrency control doesn't recognize that
+ * a particular WQ is congested if the worker thread is
+ * looping without ever sleeping. Therefore we have to
+ * do a short sleep here rather than calling
+ * cond_resched().
+ */
+ if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
+ else
+ cond_resched();
+ return ret;
}
static inline bool
@@ -4237,12 +4239,6 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
if (did_some_progress) {
no_progress_loops = 0;
- /*
- * This schedule_timeout_*() serves as a guaranteed sleep for
- * PF_WQ_WORKER threads when __zone_watermark_ok() == false.
- */
- if (!tsk_is_oom_victim(current))
- schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
goto retry;
}
--
1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-07 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-07 11:00 [PATCH 1/4] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-07 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2018-06-07 11:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm,page_alloc: Move the short sleep to should_reclaim_retry() Michal Hocko
2018-06-07 11:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm,oom: Simplify exception case handling in out_of_memory() Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-07 11:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-22 18:59 ` David Rientjes
2018-06-07 11:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm,oom: Check pending victims earlier " Tetsuo Handa
2018-06-07 11:28 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-07 11:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held Michal Hocko
2018-06-08 10:47 ` Tetsuo Handa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1528369223-7571-2-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox