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 S1755333AbcEDSUx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 14:20:53 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35102 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755308AbcEDSUw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 14:20:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:20:49 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.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>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more
Message-ID: <20160504182049.GC21490@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1461181647-8039-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <1461181647-8039-13-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20160504060123.GB10899@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <20160504085307.GD29978@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAAmzW4MBC4tVJA1T3Py3ZwFmVPxE=X4+W6J5OQSp8aDu_YmboQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAmzW4MBC4tVJA1T3Py3ZwFmVPxE=X4+W6J5OQSp8aDu_YmboQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 04-05-16 23:39:14, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>:
> > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the
> > discussion
> 
> Okay.
> 
> >> > +static inline bool
> >> > +should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result compact_result,
> >> > +                enum migrate_mode *migrate_mode,
> >> > +                int compaction_retries)
> >> > +{
> >> > +   if (!order)
> >> > +           return false;
> >> > +
> >> > +   /*
> >> > +    * compaction considers all the zone as desperately out of memory
> >> > +    * so it doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
> >> > +    * failure could be caused by weak migration mode.
> >> > +    */
> >> > +   if (compaction_failed(compact_result)) {
> >>
> >> IIUC, this compaction_failed() means that at least one zone is
> >> compacted and failed. This is not same with your assumption in the
> >> comment. If compaction is done and failed on ZONE_DMA, it would be
> >> premature decision.
> >
> > Not really, because if other zones are making some progress then their
> > result will override COMPACT_COMPLETE
> 
> Think about the situation that DMA zone fails to compact and
> the other zones are deferred or skipped. In this case, COMPACT_COMPLETE
> will be returned as a final result and should_compact_retry() return false.
> I don't think that it means all the zones are desperately out of memory.

But that would mean that the ZONE_DMA would be eligible for compaction,
no? And considering the watermark check this zone should COMPACT_SKIP
for most allocation request. Or am I missing something?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs