From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933147Ab1EXXxl (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 19:53:41 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:37262 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932094Ab1EXXxk (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 19:53:40 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Message-ID: <4DDC44F0.6090809@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:20 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mgorman@suse.de CC: minchan.kim@gmail.com, abarry@cray.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Unending loop in __alloc_pages_slowpath following OOM-kill; rfc: patch. References: <4DD2991B.5040707@cray.com> <20110520164924.GB2386@barrios-desktop> <4DDB3A1E.6090206@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524083008.GA5279@suse.de> <4DDB6DF6.2050700@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524084915.GC5279@suse.de> <4DDB74F7.9020109@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524091611.GD5279@suse.de> <4DDB7D0F.3060204@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524105746.GF5279@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110524105746.GF5279@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> In old days, we always call drain_all_pages() if did_some_progress!=0. But >> current kernel only call it when get_page_from_freelist() fail. So, >> wait_iff_congested() may help but no guarantee to help us. >> >> If you still strongly worry about IPI cost, I'm concern to move drain_all_pages() >> to more unfrequently point. but to ignore pcp makes less sense, IMHO. >> > > Yes, I'm worried about it because excessive time > spent in drain_all_pages() has come up on the past > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/23/81 . The PCP lists are not being > ignored at the moment. They are drained when direct reclaim makes > forward progress but still fails to allocate a page. Well, it's no priority==0 case. that's my point. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F926B0011 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 19:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD863EE081 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C2745DF4D for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8874F45DF48 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A497E08002 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.145]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432CE1DB8037 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:38 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4DDC44F0.6090809@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:53:20 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Unending loop in __alloc_pages_slowpath following OOM-kill; rfc: patch. References: <4DD2991B.5040707@cray.com> <20110520164924.GB2386@barrios-desktop> <4DDB3A1E.6090206@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524083008.GA5279@suse.de> <4DDB6DF6.2050700@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524084915.GC5279@suse.de> <4DDB74F7.9020109@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524091611.GD5279@suse.de> <4DDB7D0F.3060204@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110524105746.GF5279@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110524105746.GF5279@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mgorman@suse.de Cc: minchan.kim@gmail.com, abarry@cray.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> In old days, we always call drain_all_pages() if did_some_progress!=0. But >> current kernel only call it when get_page_from_freelist() fail. So, >> wait_iff_congested() may help but no guarantee to help us. >> >> If you still strongly worry about IPI cost, I'm concern to move drain_all_pages() >> to more unfrequently point. but to ignore pcp makes less sense, IMHO. >> > > Yes, I'm worried about it because excessive time > spent in drain_all_pages() has come up on the past > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/23/81 . The PCP lists are not being > ignored at the moment. They are drained when direct reclaim makes > forward progress but still fails to allocate a page. Well, it's no priority==0 case. that's my point. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org