From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [patch 00/12] mm: page_alloc: improve OOM mechanism and policy Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:39:02 +1100 Message-ID: <20150401213902.GE8465@dastard> References: <1427264236-17249-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20150326195822.GB28129@dastard> <20150327150509.GA21119@cmpxchg.org> <20150330003240.GB28621@dastard> <20150401151920.GB23824@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Tetsuo Handa , Huang Ying , Andrea Arcangeli , Theodore Ts'o To: Michal Hocko Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150401151920.GB23824@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > [...] > > > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside > > > the allocator, even though many of them seem to have fallback code. > > > My reasoning here is that if you *have* an exit strategy for failing > > > allocations that is smarter than hanging, we should probably use that. > > > > We already do that for allocations where we can handle failure in > > GFP_NOFS conditions. It is, however, somewhat useless if we can't > > tell the allocator to try really hard if we've already had a failure > > and we are already in memory reclaim conditions (e.g. a shrinker > > trying to clean dirty objects so they can be reclaimed). > > > > From that perspective, I think that this patch set aims force us > > away from handling fallbacks ourselves because a) it makes GFP_NOFS > > more likely to fail, and b) provides no mechanism to "try harder" > > when we really need the allocation to succeed. > > You can ask for this "try harder" by __GFP_HIGH flag. Would that help > in your fallback case? That dips into GFP_ATOMIC reserves, right? What is the impact on the GFP_ATOMIC allocations that need it? We typically see network cards fail GFP_ATOMIC allocations before XFS starts complaining about allocation failures, so i suspect that this might just make things worse rather than better... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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