linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:13:21 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110323161354.1AD2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1HcdkPcxnWrv+VbMUSh3kQBC=-myZ-j-a8Wiy@mail.gmail.com>

> Okay. I got it.
> 
> The problem is following as.
> By the race the free_pcppages_bulk and balance_pgdat, it is possible
> zone->all_unreclaimable = 1 and zone->pages_scanned = 0.
> DMA zone have few LRU pages and in case of no-swap and big memory
> pressure, there could be a just a page in inactive file list like your
> example. (anon lru pages isn't important in case of non-swap system)
> In such case, shrink_zones doesn't scan the page at all until priority
> become 0 as get_scan_count does scan >>= priority(it's mostly zero).

Nope.

                        if (zone->all_unreclaimable && priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
                                continue;

This tow lines mean, all_unreclaimable prevent priority 0 reclaim.


> And although priority become 0, nr_scan_try_batch returns zero until
> saved pages become 32. So for scanning the page, at least, we need 32
> times iteration of priority 12..0.  If system has fork-bomb, it is
> almost livelock.

Therefore, 1000 times get_scan_count(DEF_PRIORITY) takes 1000 times no-op.

> 
> If is is right, how about this?

Boo.
You seems forgot why you introduced current all_unreclaimable() function.
While hibernation, we can't trust all_unreclaimable.

That's the reason why I proposed following patch when you introduced
all_unreclaimable().


---
 mm/vmscan.c |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index c391c32..1919d8a 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
 #include <linux/memcontrol.h>
 #include <linux/delayacct.h>
 #include <linux/sysctl.h>
+#include <linux/oom.h>
 
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 #include <asm/div64.h>
@@ -1931,7 +1932,7 @@ out:
 		return sc->nr_reclaimed;
 
 	/* top priority shrink_zones still had more to do? don't OOM, then */
-	if (scanning_global_lru(sc) && !all_unreclaimable)
+	if (scanning_global_lru(sc) && !all_unreclaimable && !oom_killer_disabled)
 		return 1;
 
 	return 0;
-- 
1.6.5.2





--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-23  7:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20110314232156.0c363813.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
     [not found] ` <20110315153801.3526.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2011-03-22 11:04   ` [patch 0/5] oom: a few anti fork bomb patches KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:05     ` [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 14:49       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  5:21         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  6:59           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:13             ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2011-03-23  8:24               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  8:44                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  9:02                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  2:11                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  2:21                       ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  2:48                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  3:04                           ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  5:35                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  4:19                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  5:35                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  5:53                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  6:16                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  6:32                               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:03                                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:25                                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:28                                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:34                                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:41                                         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:43                                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:43                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:41       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  7:55         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:06     ` [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority" KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:42       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 13:40         ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-24  0:06           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 15:27       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28  9:48         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 12:28           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28  9:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:21           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 12:28             ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:40               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 13:10                 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-28 13:18                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 13:56                     ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-29  2:46                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 13:48                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: create oom autogroup KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 23:21       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  1:27         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  2:41           ` Mike Galbraith
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: introduce wait_on_page_locked_killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:44       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-24 15:04       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:09     ` [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:49       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  8:09         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 14:34           ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 15:10       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 17:13       ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-24 17:34         ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-28  7:00           ` KOSAKI Motohiro

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=20110323161354.1AD2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avagin@openvz.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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