Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: multigenerational lru: aging

[Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-01-22 02:43:38, Yu Zhao wrote:
> [...]
> > > > The bottom line is I can try various optimizations, e.g., preallocate
> > > > a few buffers for a limited number of page walkers and if this number
> > > > has been reached, fallback to the rmap-based function. But I have yet
> > > > to see evidence that calls for additional complexity.
> > > 
> > > I would disagree here. This is not an optimization. You should be
> > > avoiding allocations from the memory reclaim because any allocation just
> > > add a runtime behavior complexity and potential corner cases.
> > 
> > Would __GFP_NOMEMALLOC address your concern? It prevents allocations
> > from accessing the reserves even under PF_MEMALLOC.
> 
> __GFP_NOMEMALLOC would deal with the complete memory depletion concern
> for sure but I am not sure how any of these allocations would succeed
> when called from the direct reclaim. Some access to memory reserves is
> necessary if you insist on allocating from the reclaim process.
> 
> You can have a look at the limited memory reserves access by oom victims
> for an example of how this can be done.

Thanks. I'll change GFP_KERNEL to __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC.
__GFP_HIGH allows some access to memory reserves and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC
prevents the complete depletion. Basically the combination lower the
min watermark by 1/2, and we have been using them for
add_to_swap_cache().