From: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove redundant check in handle_mm_fault
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:36:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <354360d5-dce6-a11c-ee61-d41e615bfa05@shopee.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df3997ed-a844-597b-fbb1-154caad78543@redhat.com>
On 2023/3/6 21:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.03.23 03:49, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>> mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() has checked whether current memcg_in_oom is
>> set or not, so remove the check in handle_mm_fault().
>
> "mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() will returned immediately if memcg_in_oom is not set, so remove the check from handle_mm_fault()".
>
> However, that requires now always an indirect function call -- do we care about dropping that optimization?
>
>
If memcg_in_oom is set, we will check it twice, one is from handle_mm_fault(), the other is from mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(). That seems a bit redundant.
if memcg_in_oom is not set, mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() returns directly. Though it's an indirect function call, but the time spent can be negligible
compare to the whole mm user falut preocess. And that won't cause stack overflow error.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-07 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-06 2:49 Haifeng Xu
2023-03-06 13:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-03-07 2:36 ` Haifeng Xu [this message]
2023-03-07 2:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-03-07 3:20 ` Haifeng Xu
2023-03-08 9:03 ` Haifeng Xu
2023-03-08 9:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-03-09 2:33 ` Haifeng Xu
2023-03-14 8:05 ` Haifeng Xu
2023-03-14 9:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-03-14 10:29 ` Haifeng Xu
2023-03-14 12:40 ` 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=354360d5-dce6-a11c-ee61-d41e615bfa05@shopee.com \
--to=haifeng.xu@shopee.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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