From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz,
riel@redhat.com, shakeelb@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com,
qiuxishi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:08:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170317180809.GB23957@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170317145020.GA8106@cmpxchg.org>
On Fri 17-03-17 10:50:20, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:36:48PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> > By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the
> > may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap
> > cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former
> > shrink_zones reclaim nothing.
> >
> > However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not
> > have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry
> > at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we
> > have already done hard work but made no progress.
> >
> > To avoid this unneeded retrying, add a new field in scan_control named
> > memcg_low_protection, set it if there is any memcg protected by low limit
> > and only do the retry when memcg_low_protection is set while may_thrash
> > is clear.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
> > Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> > Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
>
> I don't see the point of this patch. It adds more code just to
> marginally optimize a near-OOM cold path.
The current behavior is surprising and not really desirable when we want
to control the retry logic from the page allocator. So I do not think
that the additional 5 lines of code would be unbearable burden or
maintenance cost. I am not saying the patch adds any break through but
it is not pointless either.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-17 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-15 11:36 Yisheng Xie
2017-03-15 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-16 9:59 ` Yisheng Xie
2017-03-17 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-17 18:08 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-03-17 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-17 18:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 20:00 ` Johannes Weiner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170317180809.GB23957@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=xieyisheng1@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®