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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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: 18+ 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 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority-fix Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 16:20 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-27 3:25 ` Hillf Danton 2016-09-27 3:25 ` Hillf Danton 2016-09-26 16:20 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message] 2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to should_reclaim_retry() Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 16:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: ignore fragindex from compaction_zonelist_suitable() Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 16:20 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 20:15 ` Michal Hocko 2016-09-26 20:15 ` Michal Hocko 2016-09-29 9:57 ` Vlastimil Babka 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 16:20 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-09-26 20:29 ` Michal Hocko 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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.