From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com, willy@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 12:20:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b11dcd8-bc3b-aae9-feb1-43543bf9e22f@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210519213455.97ff95f0124b4120787f8314@linux-foundation.org>
On 5/20/21 6:34 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:17:43 +0100 Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> It does not make sense to retry compaction when a fatal signal is
>> pending.
>
> Well, it might make sense. Presumably it is beneficial to other tasks.
Yeah but the compaction won't happen. compact_zone() will immediately detect it
via __compact_finished() and bail out. So in that sense it does not make sense
to retry :)
>> In the context of try_to_compact_pages(), indeed COMPACT_SKIPPED can be
>> returned; albeit, not every zone, on the zone list, would be considered
>> in the case a fatal signal is found to be pending.
>> Yet, in should_compact_retry(), given the last known compaction result,
>> each zone, on the zone list, can be considered/or checked
>> (see compaction_zonelist_suitable()). For example, if a zone was found
>> to succeed, then reclaim/compaction would be tried again
>> (notwithstanding the above).
>>
>> This patch ensures that compaction is not needlessly retried
>> irrespective of the last known compaction result e.g. if it was skipped,
>> in the unlikely case a fatal signal is found pending.
>> So, OOM is at least attempted.
>
> What observed problems motivated this change?
>
> What were the observed runtime effects of this change?
Yep those details from the previous thread should be included here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-20 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-19 19:23 [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 19:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-19 19:48 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 20:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 4:34 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-20 10:20 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-05-20 11:42 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 11:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-20 13:30 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 14:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-28 12:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 11:33 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31 11:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-20 11:09 ` [PATCH v3] " Matthew Wilcox
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=9b11dcd8-bc3b-aae9-feb1-43543bf9e22f@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).