From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>, "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: "'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 08:55:33 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <98b0c783-28dc-62c4-5a94-74c9e27bebe0@suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <005b01d2154f$8d38b830$a7aa2890$@alibaba-inc.com> On 09/23/2016 06:04 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: >> >> ----8<---- >> From a7921e57ba1189b9c08fc4879358a908c390e47c 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. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> >> --- >> 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..a01359ab3ed6 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; > > s/no/*no/ >> + else >> + no_progress_loops++; > > s/no_progress_loops/(*no_progress_loops)/ Crap, thanks. I'm asking our gcc guy about possible warnings for this, and some past mistake I've seen which would be *no_progress_loops++. > With that feel free to add > Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com> Thanks! ----8<---- >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> --- 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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>, 'Michal Hocko' <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: '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 08:55:33 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <98b0c783-28dc-62c4-5a94-74c9e27bebe0@suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <005b01d2154f$8d38b830$a7aa2890$@alibaba-inc.com> On 09/23/2016 06:04 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: >> >> ----8<---- >> From a7921e57ba1189b9c08fc4879358a908c390e47c 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. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> >> --- >> 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..a01359ab3ed6 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; > > s/no/*no/ >> + else >> + no_progress_loops++; > > s/no_progress_loops/(*no_progress_loops)/ Crap, thanks. I'm asking our gcc guy about possible warnings for this, and some past mistake I've seen which would be *no_progress_loops++. > With that feel free to add > Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com> Thanks! ----8<----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-23 6:56 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 [this message] 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 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=98b0c783-28dc-62c4-5a94-74c9e27bebe0@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 \ /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.