From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932536AbcBZK2U (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:28:20 -0500
Received: from mail113-250.mail.alibaba.com ([205.204.113.250]:33931 "EHLO
	us-alimail-mta1.hst.scl.en.alidc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932253AbcBZK2R (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:28:17 -0500
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01l10450;MF=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=12;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_----4YTfE1X_1456482436;
Reply-To: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
To: "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: "'Hugh Dickins'" <hughd@google.com>,
        "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@google.com>,
        "'Tetsuo Handa'" <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki'" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
References: <1450203586-10959-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160203132718.GI6757@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602241832160.15564@eggly.anvils> <20160225092315.GD17573@dhcp22.suse.cz> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1602252219020.9793@eggly.anvils> <009a01d1706a$e666dc00$b3349400$@alibaba-inc.com> <20160226092406.GB8940@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20160226092406.GB8940@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:27:16 +0800
Message-ID: <00bd01d17080$445ceb00$cd16c100$@alibaba-inc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLrn4RotpjS2Y3s/D1LpIleWH8/2gFR+O4RAVq04vYCd5T5zwHUwUkyAnjbuMUBc/n0kZyykAwA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>> 
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Feb 25 15:43:18 2016
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c	Fri Feb 26 15:18:55 2016
> > @@ -3113,6 +3113,8 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, uns
> >  	struct zone *zone;
> >  	struct zoneref *z;
> >
> > +	if (order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
> > +		return true;
> 
> This is defeating the whole purpose of the rework - to behave
> deterministically. You have just disabled the oom killer completely.
> This is not the way to go
> 
Then in another direction, below is what I can do.

thanks
Hillf
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Feb 25 15:43:18 2016
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c	Fri Feb 26 18:14:59 2016
@@ -3366,8 +3366,11 @@ retry:
 		no_progress_loops++;
 
 	if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags,
-				 did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
+				 did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops)) {
+		/* Burn more cycles if any zone seems to satisfy our request */
+		no_progress_loops /= 2;
 		goto retry;
+	}
 
 	/* Reclaim has failed us, start killing things */
 	page = __alloc_pages_may_oom(gfp_mask, order, ac, &did_some_progress);
--