From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ryan.roberts@arm.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memory: move mem_cgroup_charge() into alloc_anon_folio()
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:46:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZaqZPxDUOuxRWB5l@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14ae628d-a9ef-42f3-9201-e90c5c88c133@huawei.com>
On Fri 19-01-24 20:59:22, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > > > GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT is more interesting though because those do not dive
> > > > into the direct reclaim at all. With the current code they will reclaim
> > > > charges to free up the space for the allocated THP page and that defeats
> > > > the light mode. I have a vague recollection of preparing a patch to
> > >
> > > We are interesting to GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT and _GFP_NORETRY as mentioned
> > > above.
> >
> > if mTHP can be smaller than COSTLY_ORDER then you are correct and
> > NORETRY makes a difference. Please mention that in the changelog as
> > well.
> >
>
> For memory cgroup charge, _GFP_NORETRY checked to make us directly skip
> mem_cgroup_oom(), it has no concern with folio order or COSTLY_ORDER when
> check _GFP_NORETRY in try_charge_memcg(), so I think NORETRY should
> always make difference for all large order folio.
we do not OOM on COSTLY_ORDER (see mem_cgroup_oom). So NORETRY really
makes a difference for small orders.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-19 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-17 10:39 [PATCH v2] mm: memory: move mem_cgroup_charge() into alloc_anon_folio() Kefeng Wang
2024-01-18 14:49 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-01-18 15:59 ` Michal Hocko
2024-01-19 2:05 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-01-19 8:00 ` Michal Hocko
2024-01-19 12:59 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-01-19 15:46 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2024-01-20 2:13 ` Kefeng Wang
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=ZaqZPxDUOuxRWB5l@tiehlicka \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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).