Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should
> try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times
> before giving up.  Make them all retry the same number of times.

OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?

It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
before the reclaim but then we ignore it.

> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index e946f7439b16..52550bbff1ef 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2566,7 +2566,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>  				 bool oom)
>  {
>  	unsigned int batch = max(CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages);
> -	int nr_oom_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> +	int nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
>  	struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit;
>  	struct res_counter *fail_res;
>  	unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> @@ -2638,6 +2638,9 @@ retry:
>  	if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit))
>  		goto retry;
>  
> +	if (nr_retries--)
> +		goto retry;
> +
>  	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
>  		goto bypass;
>  
> @@ -2647,9 +2650,6 @@ retry:
>  	if (!oom)
>  		goto nomem;
>  
> -	if (nr_oom_retries--)
> -		goto retry;
> -
>  	mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, get_order(batch));
>  nomem:
>  	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> -- 
> 2.0.0
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>