Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2014 16:43:39 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [patch 3/9] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges |
| |
On Wed 30-04-14 16:25:37, Johannes Weiner wrote: > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times > before giving up. Make them all retry the same number of times.
I guess the idea whas that oom disabled (THP) allocation can fallback to a smaller allocation. I would suspect this would increase latency for THP page faults.
__GFP_NOFAIL is a different story and it can be retried.
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 6ce59146fec7..c431a30280ac 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -2589,7 +2589,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > bool oom) > { > unsigned int batch = max(CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages); > - int nr_oom_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > + int nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit; > struct res_counter *fail_res; > unsigned long nr_reclaimed; > @@ -2660,6 +2660,9 @@ retry: > if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit)) > goto retry; > > + if (nr_retries--) > + goto retry; > + > if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) > goto bypass; > > @@ -2669,9 +2672,6 @@ retry: > if (!oom) > goto nomem; > > - if (nr_oom_retries--) > - goto retry; > - > mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, get_order(batch)); > nomem: > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) > -- > 1.9.2 >
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |