lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [BUGFIX][PATCH 1/4] memcg: fix limit estimation at reclaim for hugepage
    From
    On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:24 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
    <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:04:16 +0900
    > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Kame,
    >>
    >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
    >> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >> > How about this ?
    >> > ==
    >> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    >> >
    >> > 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 <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

    Thanks!!

    >
    > Thanks,
    > -Kame
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Kind regards,
    Minchan Kim
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-28 09:39    [W:0.027 / U:0.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site