public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
	Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MM: introduce memalloc_retry_wait()
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:53:11 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211117055311.GS449541@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <163712329077.13692.12796971766360881401@noble.neil.brown.name>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:28:10PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> Various places in the kernel - largely in filesystems - respond to a
> memory allocation failure by looping around and re-trying.
.....
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> index aca874d33fe6..f2f2a5b28808 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> @@ -214,6 +214,27 @@ static inline void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask) { }
>  static inline void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask) { }
>  #endif
>  
> +/* Any memory-allocation retry loop should use
> + * memalloc_retry_wait(), and pass the flags for the most
> + * constrained allocation attempt that might have failed.
> + * This provides useful documentation of where loops are,
> + * and a central place to fine tune the waiting as the MM
> + * implementation changes.
> + */
> +static inline void memalloc_retry_wait(gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +{
> +	gfp_flags = current_gfp_context(gfp_flags);
> +	if ((gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) &&
> +	    !(gfp_flags & __GFP_NORETRY))
> +		/* Probably waited already, no need for much more */
> +		schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> +	else
> +		/* Probably didn't wait, and has now released a lock,
> +		 * so now is a good time to wait
> +		 */
> +		schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ/50);
> +}

The existing congestion_wait() calls io_schedule_timeout() under
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE conditions.

Does changing all these calls just to a plain
schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() make any difference to behaviour?
At least process accounting will appear different (uninterruptible
sleep instead of IO wait), and I suspect that the block plug
flushing in io_schedule() might be a good idea to retain for all the
filesystems that call this function from IO-related routines.

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-17  5:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-17  4:28 [PATCH] MM: introduce memalloc_retry_wait() NeilBrown
2021-11-17  5:53 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2021-11-22  1:15   ` [PATCH v2] " NeilBrown
2021-11-22 15:06     ` Chuck Lever III

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=20211117055311.GS449541@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chao@kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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