Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 15/28] mm, page_alloc: Move might_sleep_if check to the allocator slowpath | From | Vlastimil Babka <> | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:16:21 +0200 |
| |
On 04/26/2016 04:50 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:41:22PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 04/15/2016 11:07 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >> >There is a debugging check for callers that specify __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM >> >from a context that cannot sleep. Triggering this is almost certainly >> >a bug but it's also overhead in the fast path. >> >> For CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, enabling is asking for the overhead. But for >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY which turns it into _cond_resched(), I guess it's >> not. >> > > Either way, it struck me as odd. It does depend on the config and it's > marginal so if there is a problem then I can drop it.
What I tried to say is that it makes sense, but it's perhaps non-obvious :)
>> >Move the check to the slow >> >path. It'll be harder to trigger as it'll only be checked when watermarks >> >are depleted but it'll also only be checked in a path that can sleep. >> >> Hmm what about zone_reclaim_mode=1, should the check be also duplicated to >> that part of get_page_from_freelist()? >> > > zone_reclaim has a !gfpflags_allow_blocking() check, does not call > cond_resched() before that check so it does not fall into an accidental > sleep path. I'm not seeing why the check is necessary there.
Hmm I thought the primary purpose of this might_sleep_if() is to catch those (via the DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) that do pass __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM (which means gfpflags_allow_blocking() will be true and zone_reclaim will proceed), but do so from the wrong context. Am I getting that wrong?
| |