[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Question] Should direct reclaim time be bounded?
On 4/23/19 6:39 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> That being said, I do not think __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is wrong here. It
>> looks like there is something wrong in the reclaim going on.
> Ok, I will start digging into that. Just wanted to make sure before I got
> into it too deep.
> BTW - This is very easy to reproduce. Just try to allocate more huge pages
> than will fit into memory. I see this 'reclaim taking forever' behavior on
> v5.1-rc5-mmotm-2019-04-19-14-53. Looks like it was there in v5.0 as well.

I'd suspect this in should_continue_reclaim():

/* Consider stopping depending on scan and reclaim activity */
if (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL) {
* For __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL allocations, stop reclaiming if the
* full LRU list has been scanned and we are still failing
* to reclaim pages. This full LRU scan is potentially
* expensive but a __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL caller really wants to succeed
if (!nr_reclaimed && !nr_scanned)
return false;

And that for some reason, nr_scanned never becomes zero. But it's hard
to figure out through all the layers of functions :/

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-24 16:39    [W:0.082 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site