From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to should_reclaim_retry()
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:20:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160926162025.21555-3-vbabka@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160926162025.21555-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it
makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with
should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change.
[hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com: fix missing pointer dereferences]
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 0fd29731ab35..8ed4f506ae0b 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3404,16 +3404,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
static inline bool
should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
- bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops)
+ bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
{
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
/*
+ * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
+ * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
+ * always increment the no progress counter for them
+ */
+ if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+ *no_progress_loops = 0;
+ else
+ (*no_progress_loops)++;
+
+ /*
* Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
* several times in the row.
*/
- if (no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
+ if (*no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
return false;
/*
@@ -3428,7 +3438,7 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
unsigned long reclaimable;
available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
- available -= DIV_ROUND_UP(no_progress_loops * available,
+ available -= DIV_ROUND_UP((*no_progress_loops) * available,
MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES);
available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
@@ -3650,18 +3660,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
goto nopage;
- /*
- * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
- * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
- * always increment the no progress counter for them
- */
- if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
- no_progress_loops = 0;
- else
- no_progress_loops++;
-
if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags,
- did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
+ did_some_progress > 0, &no_progress_loops))
goto retry;
/*
--
2.10.0
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-26 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-26 16:20 [PATCH 0/4] followups to reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority-fix Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-27 3:25 ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-26 16:20 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: ignore fragindex from compaction_zonelist_suitable() Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 20:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29 9:57 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction: restrict fragindex to costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-26 20:29 ` 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=20160926162025.21555-3-vbabka@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
--cc=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).