lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more
On Wed 04-05-16 23:57:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>:
> > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> >> > > no_progress_loops))
> >> > > goto retry;
> >> > >
> >> > > + /*
> >> > > + * It doesn't make any sense to retry for the compaction if the order-0
> >> > > + * reclaim is not able to make any progress because the current
> >> > > + * implementation of the compaction depends on the sufficient amount
> >> > > + * of free memory (see __compaction_suitable)
> >> > > + */
> >> > > + if (did_some_progress > 0 &&
> >> > > + should_compact_retry(order, compact_result,
> >> > > + &migration_mode, compaction_retries))
> >> >
> >> > Checking did_some_progress on each round have subtle corner case. Think
> >> > about following situation.
> >> >
> >> > round, compaction, did_some_progress, compaction
> >> > 0, defer, 1
> >> > 0, defer, 1
> >> > 0, defer, 1
> >> > 0, defer, 1
> >> > 0, defer, 0
> >>
> >> Oops...Example should be below one.
> >>
> >> 0, defer, 1
> >> 1, defer, 1
> >> 2, defer, 1
> >> 3, defer, 1
> >> 4, defer, 0
> >
> > I am not sure I understand. The point of the check is that if the
> > reclaim doesn't make _any_ progress then checking the result of the
> > compaction after it didn't lead to a successful allocation just doesn't
> > make any sense.
>
> Even if this round (#4) doesn't reclaim any pages, previous rounds
> (#0, #1, #2, #3) would reclaim enough pages to succeed future
> compaction attempt.

Then the compaction shouldn't back off and I would consider it a
compaction bug. I haven't see this happening though. Vlastimil is
already working on patches which would simply guarantee that really
important allocations will not defer.

So unless I can see an example of a real issue with this I think it is
just a theoretical issue which shouldn't block the patch as is.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-04 20:41    [W:0.058 / U:8.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site