From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, vbabka@suse.cz, mhocko@suse.com,
willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 21:34:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210519213455.97ff95f0124b4120787f8314@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210519201743.3260890-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:17:43 +0100 Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com> wrote:
> It does not make sense to retry compaction when a fatal signal is
> pending.
Well, it might make sense. Presumably it is beneficial to other tasks.
> In the context of try_to_compact_pages(), indeed COMPACT_SKIPPED can be
> returned; albeit, not every zone, on the zone list, would be considered
> in the case a fatal signal is found to be pending.
> Yet, in should_compact_retry(), given the last known compaction result,
> each zone, on the zone list, can be considered/or checked
> (see compaction_zonelist_suitable()). For example, if a zone was found
> to succeed, then reclaim/compaction would be tried again
> (notwithstanding the above).
>
> This patch ensures that compaction is not needlessly retried
> irrespective of the last known compaction result e.g. if it was skipped,
> in the unlikely case a fatal signal is found pending.
> So, OOM is at least attempted.
What observed problems motivated this change?
What were the observed runtime effects of this change?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-20 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-19 19:23 [PATCH v2] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 19:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-19 19:48 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 20:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 4:34 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2021-05-20 10:20 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-20 11:42 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 11:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-20 13:30 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 14:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-28 12:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 11:33 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31 11:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-20 11:09 ` [PATCH v3] " Matthew Wilcox
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=20210519213455.97ff95f0124b4120787f8314@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.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