From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.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>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] mm: use watermak checks for __GFP_REPEAT high order allocations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:18:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151120091825.GD16698@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1511191515170.17510@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Thu 19-11-15 15:17:35, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -3167,24 +3166,21 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >
> > /*
> > * Do not retry high order allocations unless they are __GFP_REPEAT
> > - * and even then do not retry endlessly unless explicitly told so
> > + * unless explicitly told so.
> > */
> > - pages_reclaimed += did_some_progress;
> > - if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > - if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) &&
> > - (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) || pages_reclaimed >= (1<<order)))
> > - goto noretry;
> > -
> > - if (did_some_progress)
> > - goto retry;
> > - }
> > + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> > + !(gfp_mask & (__GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL)))
> > + goto noretry;
>
> Who is allocating order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER with __GFP_REPEAT and
> would be affected by this change?
E.g. hugetlb pages. I have tested this in my testing scenario 3.
> >
> > /*
> > * Be optimistic and consider all pages on reclaimable LRUs as usable
> > * but make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress after
> > * multiple consecutive failed attempts.
> > + * Costly __GFP_REPEAT allocations might have made a progress but this
> > + * doesn't mean their order will become available due to high fragmentation
> > + * so do not reset the backoff for them
> > */
> > - if (did_some_progress)
> > + if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> > stall_backoff = 0;
> > else
> > stall_backoff = min(stall_backoff+1, MAX_STALL_BACKOFF);
>
> This makes sense if there are high-order users of __GFP_REPEAT since
> only using a number of pages reclaimed by itself isn't helpful.
Yes, that was my thinking
Thanks!
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-20 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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
2015-11-18 13:03 ` [RFC 2/3] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty and writeback pages Michal Hocko
2015-11-19 23:12 ` David Rientjes
2015-11-20 9:15 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-18 13:04 ` [RFC 3/3] mm: use watermak checks for __GFP_REPEAT high order allocations Michal Hocko
2015-11-19 23:17 ` David Rientjes
2015-11-20 9:18 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-11-20 23:33 ` David Rientjes
2015-11-23 9:46 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-18 16:21 ` [RFC 0/3] OOM detection rework v2 Linus Torvalds
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-12-01 12:56 [RFC 0/3] OOM detection rework v3 Michal Hocko
2015-12-01 12:56 ` [RFC 3/3] mm: use watermak checks for __GFP_REPEAT high order allocations Michal Hocko
2015-12-02 7:07 ` Hillf Danton
2015-12-02 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2015-10-29 15:17 RFC: OOM detection rework v1 mhocko
2015-10-29 15:17 ` [RFC 3/3] mm: use watermak checks for __GFP_REPEAT high order allocations mhocko
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=20151120091825.GD16698@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--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