linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:23:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151030082323.GB18429@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5632FEEF.2050709@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Fri 30-10-15 14:23:59, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On 2015/10/30 0:17, mhocko@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -3135,13 +3145,56 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >   	if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> >   		goto noretry;
> >   
> > -	/* Keep reclaiming pages as long as there is reasonable progress */
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Do not retry high order allocations unless they are __GFP_REPEAT
> > +	 * and even then do not retry endlessly.
> > +	 */
> >   	pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress;
> > -	if ((did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) ||
> > -	    ((gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) && pages_reclaimed < (1 << order))) {
> > -		/* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> > -		wait_iff_congested(ac->preferred_zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> > -		goto retry;
> > +	if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > +		if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) || pages_reclaimed >= (1<<order))
> > +			goto noretry;
> > +
> > +		if (did_some_progress)
> > +			goto retry;
> 
> why directly retry here ?

Because I wanted to preserve the previous logic for GFP_REPEAT as much
as possible here and do an incremental change in the later patch.

[...]

> > @@ -3150,8 +3203,10 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >   		goto got_pg;
> >   
> >   	/* Retry as long as the OOM killer is making progress */
> > -	if (did_some_progress)
> > +	if (did_some_progress) {
> > +		stall_backoff = 0;
> >   		goto retry;
> > +	}
> 
> Umm ? I'm sorry that I didn't notice page allocation may fail even
> if order < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER.  I thought old logic ignores
> did_some_progress. It seems a big change.

__alloc_pages_may_oom will set did_some_progress

> So, now, 0-order page allocation may fail in a OOM situation ?

No they don't normally and this patch doesn't change the logic here.
-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-30  8:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-29 15:17 RFC: OOM detection rework v1 mhocko
2015-10-29 15:17 ` [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection mhocko
2015-10-30  4:10   ` Hillf Danton
2015-10-30  8:36     ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-30 10:14       ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-30 13:32         ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-10-30 14:55           ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-31  3:57         ` Hillf Danton
2015-10-30  5:23   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-30  8:23     ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-10-30  9:41       ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-30 10:18         ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-12 12:39   ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-29 15:17 ` [RFC 2/3] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty and writeback pages mhocko
2015-10-30  4:18   ` Hillf Danton
2015-10-30  8:37     ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-30  5:48   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2015-10-30  8:38     ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-29 15:17 ` [RFC 3/3] mm: use watermak checks for __GFP_REPEAT high order allocations mhocko
2015-11-12 12:44 ` RFC: OOM detection rework v1 Michal Hocko
2015-11-18 13:03 [RFC 0/3] OOM detection rework v2 Michal Hocko
2015-11-18 13:03 ` [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection Michal Hocko
2015-11-19 23:01   ` David Rientjes
2015-11-20  9:06     ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-20 23:27       ` David Rientjes
2015-11-23  9:41         ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-23 18:24           ` Johannes Weiner
2015-11-24 10:03             ` Michal Hocko
2015-12-01 12:56 [RFC 0/3] OOM detection rework v3 Michal Hocko
2015-12-01 12:56 ` [RFC 1/3] mm, oom: refactor oom detection Michal Hocko
2015-12-11 16:16   ` Johannes Weiner
2015-12-14 18:34     ` 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=20151030082323.GB18429@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --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