From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner 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 Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> References: <1402948472-8175-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1402948472-8175-5-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg.org; s=zene; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=iVfrs/mRhV8U3bQ+/WnFvoTe8b+CqNwMjnhZ9hukmZY=; b=dZa9xr1uVjHaTyHmDETF6BpDP9qkIPyO5Wy0RlsLYUF+s3rlLWmQG4Mvw9LbTTLADwG0xNE2DfxXUwVjHIAwDe5vi081DerNtTSmZOjQ3zTxYoG7S3QHvTDDWqfMsA7HT2yi1rt076IBb6WUjIdnv3kqQrWuQpm6OuYIRa/5A1Q=; Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Tejun Heo , Vladimir Davydov , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (mail-we0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781666B0031 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t60so7615744wes.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zene.cmpxchg.org (zene.cmpxchg.org. [2a01:238:4224:fa00:ca1f:9ef3:caee:a2bd]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qn1si24773921wjc.117.2014.06.17.08.45.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [patch 04/12] mm: memcontrol: retry reclaim for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> References: <1402948472-8175-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1402948472-8175-5-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Tejun Heo , Vladimir Davydov , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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. -- 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755936AbaFQPpi (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:38 -0400 Received: from zene.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.230.12]:37062 "EHLO zene.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755401AbaFQPpg (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:45:27 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Tejun Heo , Vladimir Davydov , 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 Message-ID: <20140617154527.GC7331@cmpxchg.org> References: <1402948472-8175-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1402948472-8175-5-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140617135344.GC19886@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.