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 11:38:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617153814.GB7331@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617142317.GD19886@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:23:17PM +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.
> > 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.
>
> Maybe we can get one step further and even get rid of oom parameter.
> It is only THP (handled by this patch) and mem_cgroup_do_precharge that
> want OOM disabled explicitly.
Great idea!
> GFP_KERNEL & (~__GFP_NORETRY) is ugly and something like GFP_NO_OOM
> would be better but this is just a quick scratch.
I think it's fine, actually.
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 52550bbff1ef..5d247822b03a 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2555,15 +2555,13 @@ static int memcg_cpu_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> * mem_cgroup_try_charge - try charging a memcg
> * @memcg: memcg to charge
> * @nr_pages: number of pages to charge
> - * @oom: trigger OOM if reclaim fails
> *
> * Returns 0 if @memcg was charged successfully, -EINTR if the charge
> * was bypassed to root_mem_cgroup, and -ENOMEM if the charge failed.
> */
> static int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> gfp_t gfp_mask,
> - unsigned int nr_pages,
> - bool oom)
> + unsigned int nr_pages)
> {
> unsigned int batch = max(CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages);
> int nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> @@ -2647,7 +2645,7 @@ retry:
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> goto bypass;
>
> - if (!oom)
> + if (!oom_gfp_allowed(gfp_mask))
> goto nomem;
We don't actually need that check: if __GFP_NORETRY is set, we goto
nomem directly after reclaim fails and don't even reach here.
So here is the patch I have now - can I get your sign-off on this?
---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 15:38 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
2014-06-17 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 15:38 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
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=20140617153814.GB7331@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