From: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Vladimir Davydov
<vdavydov-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, 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.
>
> OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
>
> It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> before the reclaim but then we ignore it.
"mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, 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.
>
> OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
>
> It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> before the reclaim but then we ignore it.
"mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, 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.
>
> OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make
> sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending?
>
> It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens
> before the reclaim but then we ignore it.
"mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path", moves the pending
signal check inside the retry block, right before reclaim.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-16 19:54 [patch 00/12] mm: memcontrol: naturalize charge lifetime v3 Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 01/12] mm: memcontrol: fold mem_cgroup_do_charge() Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 02/12] mm: memcontrol: rearrange charging fast path Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 03/12] mm: huge_memory: use GFP_TRANSHUGE when charging huge pages Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 15:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 15:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 14:23 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20140617142317.GD19886-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-17 15:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 15:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 15:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:27 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 16:27 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20140617162747.GB9572-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-18 20:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
[not found] ` <1402948472-8175-5-git-send-email-hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-17 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 13:53 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20140617135344.GC19886-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-17 15:45 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-06-17 15:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 15:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:30 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 16:30 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 05/12] mm: memcontrol: reclaim at least once for __GFP_NORETRY Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 06/12] mm: memcontrol: simplify move precharge function Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 14:59 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 07/12] mm: memcontrol: catch root bypass in move precharge Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 08/12] mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
[not found] ` <1402948472-8175-1-git-send-email-hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 09/12] mm: memcontrol: remove ordering between pc->mem_cgroup and PageCgroupUsed Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 10/12] mm: memcontrol: do not acquire page_cgroup lock for kmem pages Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 11/12] mm: memcontrol: rewrite charge API Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` [patch 12/12] mm: memcontrol: rewrite uncharge API Johannes Weiner
2014-06-16 19:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-17 16:36 ` [patch 00/12] mm: memcontrol: naturalize charge lifetime v3 Michal Hocko
2014-06-17 16:36 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20140617163615.GD9572-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-18 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-06-18 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-18 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-18 21:02 ` Michal Hocko
2014-06-18 21:02 ` Michal Hocko
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=20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes-druugvl0lcnafugrpc6u6w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=vdavydov-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.