Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:21:43 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [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. >
| |