From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755095Ab1A1Ihb (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:37:31 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:52689 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755015Ab1A1Iha convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:37:30 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=btPZOSrAQZVtmU5/OzVTVcukoauHwochvxuf0NB0IVwFlL3mYLZmTlQ2KK1928j947 t16/J7yjTp4BHG8qfm1FDI3cSOt/PjjjxHnEEpC/Y1P9h+nD9uY05C1DQGSKyqF61CZ9 VweFA+HRi0eP4cUcyUqU6hqgFRlXNnFcXCARU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110128172438.6c49d4ea.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20110128122229.6a4c74a2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128122449.e4bb0e5f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128134019.27abcfe2.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20110128135839.d53422e8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128172438.6c49d4ea.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:37:29 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 1/4] memcg: fix limit estimation at reclaim for hugepage From: Minchan Kim To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:04:16 +0900 > Minchan Kim wrote: > >> Hi Kame, >> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> wrote: >> > How about this ? >> > == >> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> > >> > Current memory cgroup's code tends to assume page_size == PAGE_SIZE >> > and arrangement for THP is not enough yet. >> > >> > This is one of fixes for supporing THP. This adds >> > mem_cgroup_check_margin() and checks whether there are required amount of >> > free resource after memory reclaim. By this, THP page allocation >> > can know whether it really succeeded or not and avoid infinite-loop >> > and hangup. >> > >> > Total fixes for do_charge()/reclaim memory will follow this patch. >> >> If this patch is only related to THP, I think patch order isn't good. >> Before applying [2/4], huge page allocation will retry without >> reclaiming and loop forever by below part. >> >> @@ -1854,9 +1858,6 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct >>       } else >>               mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res); >> >> -     if (csize > PAGE_SIZE) /* change csize and retry */ >> -             return CHARGE_RETRY; >> - >>       if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)) >>               return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK; >> >> Am I missing something? >> > > You're right. But >  - This patch oder doesn't affect bi-sect of the bug. because >   2 bugs seems to be the same. >  - This patch implements a leaf function for the real fix. > > Then, I think patch order is not problem here. > > Thank you for pointing out. Okay. I understand Hannes and your opinion. In my opinion, my suggestion can enhance the patch readability in this series as just only my viewpoint. :) Anyway, I don't mind it. Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim Thanks!! > > Thanks, > -Kame > > > > > -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FDE8D0039 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by iyj17 with SMTP id 17so2442701iyj.14 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:37:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110128172438.6c49d4ea.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20110128122229.6a4c74a2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128122449.e4bb0e5f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128134019.27abcfe2.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20110128135839.d53422e8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110128172438.6c49d4ea.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:37:29 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 1/4] memcg: fix limit estimation at reclaim for hugepage From: Minchan Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" List-ID: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:04:16 +0900 > Minchan Kim wrote: > >> Hi Kame, >> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> wrote: >> > How about this ? >> > =3D=3D >> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> > >> > Current memory cgroup's code tends to assume page_size =3D=3D PAGE_SIZ= E >> > and arrangement for THP is not enough yet. >> > >> > This is one of fixes for supporing THP. This adds >> > mem_cgroup_check_margin() and checks whether there are required amount= of >> > free resource after memory reclaim. By this, THP page allocation >> > can know whether it really succeeded or not and avoid infinite-loop >> > and hangup. >> > >> > Total fixes for do_charge()/reclaim memory will follow this patch. >> >> If this patch is only related to THP, I think patch order isn't good. >> Before applying [2/4], huge page allocation will retry without >> reclaiming and loop forever by below part. >> >> @@ -1854,9 +1858,6 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 } else >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 mem_over_limit =3D mem_= cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res); >> >> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (csize > PAGE_SIZE) /* change csize and retry */ >> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return CHARGE_RETRY; >> - >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)) >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return CHARGE_WOULDBLOC= K; >> >> Am I missing something? >> > > You're right. But > =C2=A0- This patch oder doesn't affect bi-sect of the bug. because > =C2=A0 2 bugs seems to be the same. > =C2=A0- This patch implements a leaf function for the real fix. > > Then, I think patch order is not problem here. > > Thank you for pointing out. Okay. I understand Hannes and your opinion. In my opinion, my suggestion can enhance the patch readability in this series as just only my viewpoint. :) Anyway, I don't mind it. Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim Thanks!! > > Thanks, > -Kame > > > > > --=20 Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org