All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"'Arkadiusz Miskiewicz'" <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
	"'Ralf-Peter Rohbeck'" <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	"'Olaf Hering'" <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	"'Joonsoo Kim'" <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	"'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@google.com>,
	"'Rik van Riel'" <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:47:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <03ee39d2-1bf2-802f-deca-5379f73fecfb@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160923082312.GD4478@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
>> >From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
>>  should_reclaim_retry()
>>
>> 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>
> 
> OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a

Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the
number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not
stricly needed.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<deec7319-2976-6d34-ab7b-afbb3f6c32f8@suse.cz>

> separate thread please? They shouldn't be really needed to mitigate the
> pre-mature oom killer issues. Feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> ---
>>  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 582820080601..6039ff40452c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3401,16 +3401,26 @@ 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;
>>  
>>  	/*
>> @@ -3425,7 +3435,7 @@ 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);
>>  
>> @@ -3641,18 +3651,8 @@ __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>
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	'Andrew Morton' <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	'Arkadiusz Miskiewicz' <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
	'Ralf-Peter Rohbeck' <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	'Olaf Hering' <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, 'Mel Gorman' <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	'Joonsoo Kim' <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	'David Rientjes' <rientjes@google.com>,
	'Rik van Riel' <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:47:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <03ee39d2-1bf2-802f-deca-5379f73fecfb@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160923082312.GD4478@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
>> >From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
>>  should_reclaim_retry()
>>
>> 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>
> 
> OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a

Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the
number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not
stricly needed.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<deec7319-2976-6d34-ab7b-afbb3f6c32f8@suse.cz>

> separate thread please? They shouldn't be really needed to mitigate the
> pre-mature oom killer issues. Feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> ---
>>  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 582820080601..6039ff40452c 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3401,16 +3401,26 @@ 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;
>>  
>>  	/*
>> @@ -3425,7 +3435,7 @@ 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);
>>  
>> @@ -3641,18 +3651,8 @@ __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>
> 

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-23 10:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-06 13:52 [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request" Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:04   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:04     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:13     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 12:51     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 12:51       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:08       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:08         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52           ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:59           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:59             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  4:04             ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  4:04               ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  6:55               ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  6:55                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:23                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:23                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:47                   ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-09-23 10:47                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:06                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:06                       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: restrict full priority to non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:15   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:15     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction: make full priority ignore pageblock suitability Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-15 18:51 ` [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-15 18:51   ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-21 17:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:18   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 15:18   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:18     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:26     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:26       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:55       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 10:55         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:09         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:09           ` 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=03ee39d2-1bf2-802f-deca-5379f73fecfb@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=olaf@aepfle.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.