From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] thp, memcg: split hugepage for memcg oom on cow
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:15:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120427001533.GD1791@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204261402020.28376@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:05:11PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > > I agree it's more robust if do_huge_pmd_wp_page() were modified later and
> > > mistakenly returned VM_FAULT_OOM without the page being split, but
> > > __split_huge_page_pmd() has the drawback of also requiring to retake
> > > mm->page_table_lock to test whether orig_pmd is still legitimate so it
> > > will be slower. Do you feel strongly about the way it's currently written
> > > which will be faster at runtime?
> >
> > If you can't accomodate for a hugepage, this code runs 511 times in
> > the worst case before you also can't fit a regular page anymore. And
> > compare it to the cost of the splitting itself and the subsequent 4k
> > COW break faults...
> >
> > I don't think it's a path worth optimizing for at all, especially if
> > it includes sprinkling undocumented split_huge_pages around, and the
> > fix could be as self-contained as something like this...
> >
>
> I disagree that we should be unnecessarily taking mm->page_table_lock
> which is already strongly contended if all cpus are pagefaulting on the
> same process (and I'll be posting a patch to address specifically those
> slowdowns since thp is _much_ slower on page fault tests) when we can
> already do it in do_huge_pmd_wp_page(). If you'd like to add a comment
> for the split_huge_page() in that function if it's not clear enough from
> my VM_FAULT_OOM comment in handle_mm_fault(), then feel free to add it but
> I thought it was rather trivial to understand.
Come on, it's not "trivial to understand" why the page in the parent
is split because the child failed to allocate a replacement, shortly
before returning "out of memory". You have to look at a different
file to make sense of it. Such cross-dependencies between functions
simply suck and made problems in the past. The least you could do is
properly document them in _both_ places if you insist on adding them
in the first place.
Btw, is restarting the full page table walk even necessary? You
already have the pmd, know/hope it's been split, and hold the mmap_sem
for reading, so it can't go back to being huge or none. You should be
able to fall through to the pte lookup and handle_pte_fault(), no?
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-27 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-04 1:56 [patch] " David Rientjes
2012-04-09 9:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-10 0:23 ` David Rientjes
2012-04-10 0:43 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-10 0:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-10 5:41 ` David Rientjes
2012-04-10 5:42 ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes
2012-04-10 5:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-11 14:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-23 23:15 ` David Rientjes
2012-04-25 21:01 ` David Rientjes
2012-04-26 9:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-26 21:05 ` David Rientjes
2012-04-27 0:15 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
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=20120427001533.GD1791@redhat.com \
--to=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.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