From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 03/12] mm: huge_memory: use GFP_TRANSHUGE when charging huge pages
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:30:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617153018.GA7331@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617134745.GB19886@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:47:45PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:23, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Transparent huge page charges prefer falling back to regular pages
> > rather than spending a lot of time in direct reclaim.
> >
> > Desired reclaim behavior is usually declared in the gfp mask, but THP
> > charges use GFP_KERNEL and then rely on the fact that OOM is disabled
> > for THP charges, and that OOM-disabled charges currently skip reclaim.
>
> OOM-disabled charges do one round of reclaim currently.
Oops, fixed in v4.
> > Needless to say, this is anything but obvious and quite error prone.
> >
> > Convert THP charges to use GFP_TRANSHUGE instead, which implies
> > __GFP_NORETRY, to indicate the low-latency requirement.
>
> OK, this makes sense. It would be ideal if we could use the same gfp as
> for allocation but that would be too much churn I guess because some
> allocator use a allocation helper which deduces proper gfp flags without
> giving them back to the caller.
>
> Nevertheless, I would still prefer if 05/12 was moved before
> this patch because this is strictly speaking a behavior change.
Yes, that's bungled up, thanks for catching that. So here is the
order I put it in (reverse git history order of course):
commit d0d31c8d4f4cf91edcffa704e8c65ca62af24cf8
Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:16:09 2014 -0400
mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges
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.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
commit 69f5c6c1a6553a04d7701012a73b2477df8d5a19
Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu Jun 5 22:02:26 2014 -0400
mm: huge_memory: use GFP_TRANSHUGE when charging huge pages
Transparent huge page charges prefer falling back to regular pages
rather than spending a lot of time in direct reclaim.
Desired reclaim behavior is usually declared in the gfp mask, but THP
charges use GFP_KERNEL and then rely on the fact that OOM is disabled
for THP charges, and that OOM-disabled charges don't retry reclaim.
Needless to say, this is anything but obvious and quite error prone.
Convert THP charges to use GFP_TRANSHUGE instead, which implies
__GFP_NORETRY, to indicate the low-latency requirement.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
commit d485e6b4ed62885d54c57c18c5427e2f174c9012
Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Tue May 27 15:23:18 2014 -0400
mm: memcontrol: reclaim at least once for __GFP_NORETRY
Currently, __GFP_NORETRY tries charging once and gives up before even
trying to reclaim. Bring the behavior on par with the page allocator
and reclaim at least once before giving up.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
This first changes __GFP_NORETRY to provide THP-required semantics,
then switches THP over to it, then fixes oom-disabled/NOFAIL charges.
Does that make more sense?
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>
> Anyway
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Thanks!
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-16 19:54 [patch 00/12] mm: memcontrol: naturalize charge lifetime v3 Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 01/12] mm: memcontrol: fold mem_cgroup_do_charge() Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 02/12] mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 03/12] mm: huge_memory: use GFP_TRANSHUGE when charging huge pages Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 15:30 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-06-17 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 15:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:27 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-18 20:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 15:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:30 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 05/12] mm: memcontrol: reclaim at least once for __GFP_NORETRY Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 06/12] mm: memcontrol: simplify move precharge function Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 07/12] mm: memcontrol: catch root bypass in move precharge Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 08/12] mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 09/12] mm: memcontrol: remove ordering between pc->mem_cgroup and PageCgroupUsed Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 10/12] mm: memcontrol: do not acquire page_cgroup lock for kmem pages Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 11/12] mm: memcontrol: rewrite charge API Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 12/12] mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:36 ` [patch 00/12] mm: memcontrol: naturalize charge lifetime v3 Michal Hocko
2014-06-18 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-18 21:02 ` Michal Hocko
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=20140617153018.GA7331@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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