lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [mmotm][experimental][PATCH] coalescing charge
    On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:11:57 +0900
    Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

    > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    > > > It looks basically good. I'll do some tests with all patches applied.
    > > >
    > > thanks.
    > >
    > it seems that these patches make rmdir stall again...
    > This batched charge patch seems not to be the (only) suspect, though.
    >
    Ouch, no probelm with the latest mmotm ? I think this charge-uncharge-offload
    patch set doesn't use css_set()/get()...
    Hm, softlimit related parts ?


    > > > > @@ -1288,23 +1364,25 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc
    > > > > return 0;
    > > > >
    > > > > VM_BUG_ON(css_is_removed(&mem->css));
    > > > > + if (mem_cgroup_is_root(mem))
    > > > > + goto done;
    > > > > + if (consume_stock(mem))
    > > > > + goto charged;
    > > > >
    > IMHO, it would be better to check consume_stock() every time in the while loop below,
    > because someone might have already refilled the stock while the current context
    > sleeps in reclaiming memory.
    >
    Hm, make sense. I'll add it.


    > > > > while (1) {
    > > > > int ret = 0;
    > > > > unsigned long flags = 0;
    > > > >
    > > > > - if (mem_cgroup_is_root(mem))
    > > > > - goto done;
    > > > > - ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE, &fail_res);
    > > > > + ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->res, CHARGE_SIZE, &fail_res);
    > > > > if (likely(!ret)) {
    > > > > if (!do_swap_account)
    > > > > break;
    > > > > - ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->memsw, PAGE_SIZE,
    > > > > + ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->memsw, CHARGE_SIZE,
    > > > > &fail_res);
    > > > > if (likely(!ret))
    > > > > break;
    > > > > /* mem+swap counter fails */
    > > > > - res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE);
    > > > > + res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, CHARGE_SIZE);
    > > > > flags |= MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP;
    > > > > mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res,
    > > > > memsw);
    > How about changing pre-charge size according to the loop count ?
    > IMHO, it would be better to disable pre-charge at least in nr_retries==0 case,
    > i.e. it is about to causing oom.

    ya, I wonder I should do that. but it increases complexity if in bad conding.
    let me try.

    Thanks,
    -Kame

    >
    >
    > P.S. I will not be so active next week.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Daisuke Nishimura.
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-04 07:27    [W:2.206 / U:0.212 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site