Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:10:14 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed. |
| |
On Mon 13-08-12 12:05:38, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 08/10/2012 10:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 09-08-12 17:01:10, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> From: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> > >> > >> mem_cgroup_do_charge() was written before kmem accounting, and expects > >> three cases: being called for 1 page, being called for a stock of 32 > >> pages, or being called for a hugepage. If we call for 2 or 3 pages (and > >> both the stack and several slabs used in process creation are such, at > >> least with the debug options I had), it assumed it's being called for > >> stock and just retried without reclaiming. > >> > >> Fix that by passing down a minsize argument in addition to the csize. > >> > >> And what to do about that (csize == PAGE_SIZE && ret) retry? If it's > >> needed at all (and presumably is since it's there, perhaps to handle > >> races), then it should be extended to more than PAGE_SIZE, yet how far? > >> And should there be a retry count limit, of what? For now retry up to > >> COSTLY_ORDER (as page_alloc.c does) and make sure not to do it if > >> __GFP_NORETRY. > >> > >> [v4: fixed nr pages calculation pointed out by Christoph Lameter ] > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > I am not happy with the min_pages argument but we can do something more > > clever later. > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> > > > > I am a bit confused here. Does your ack come before or after your other > comments on this patch?
Heh, it was hard Friday ;) Yes, it was after the mind fart... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |