Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag

Wu Fengguang
2009-05-09T07:34:17Z

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:08:43AM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 08 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday 08 May 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> [--snip--]
> > > But hey, that 'count' counts "savable+free" memory.
> > > We don't have a counter for an estimation of "free+freeable" memory,
> > > ie. we are sure we cannot preallocate above that threshold.
> > >
> > > One applicable situation is, when there are 800M anonymous memory,
> > > but only 500M image_size and no swap space.
> > >
> > > In that case we will otherwise goto the oom code path. Sure oom is
> > > (and shall be) reliably disabled in hibernation, but still we shall be
> > > cautious enough not to create a low memory situation, which will hurt:
> > > - hibernation speed
> > > (vmscan goes mad trying to squeeze the last free page)
> > > - user experiences after resume
> > > (all *active* file data and metadata have to reloaded)
> >
> > Strangely enough, my recent testing with this patch doesn't confirm the
> > theory. :-) Namely, I set image_size too low on purpose and it only caused
> > preallocate_image_memory() to return NULL at one point and that was it.
> >
> > It didn't even took too much time.
> >
> > I'll carry out more testing to verify this observation.
>
> I can confirm that even if image_size is below the minimum we can get,

Which minimum please?

> the second preallocate_image_memory() just returns after allocating fewer pages
> that it's been asked for (that's with the original __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL-based
> approach, as I wrote in the previous message in this thread) and nothing bad
> happens.
>
> That may be because we freeze the mm kernel threads, but I've also tested
> without freezing them and it's still worked the same way.
>
> > > The current code simply tries *too hard* to meet image_size.
> > > I'd rather take that as a mild advice, and to only free
> > > "free+freeable-margin" pages when image_size is not approachable.
> > >
> > > The safety margin can be totalreserve_pages, plus enough pages for
> > > retaining the "hard core working set".
> >
> > How to compute the size of the "hard core working set", then?
>
> Well, I'm still interested in the answer here. ;-)

A tough question ;-)

We can start with the following formula, this should be called *after*
the initial memory shrinking.

/* a typical desktop do not have more than 100MB mapped pages */
#define MAX_MMAP_PAGES (100 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT))
unsigned long hard_core_working_set(void)
{
unsigned long nr;

/*
* mapped pages are normally small and precious,
* but shall be bounded for safety.
*/
nr = global_page_state(NR_FILE_MAPPED);
nr = min_t(unsigned long, nr, MAX_MMAP_PAGES);

/*
* if no swap space, this is a hard request;
* otherwise this is an optimization.
* (the disk image IO can be much faster than swap IO)
*/
nr += global_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_ANON);
nr += global_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_ANON);

/* hard (but normally small) memory requests */
nr += global_page_state(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE);
nr += global_page_state(NR_UNEVICTABLE);
nr += global_page_state(NR_PAGETABLE);

return nr;
}