From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DFAC433FE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAD860F9B for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240432AbhJ0HXk (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 03:23:40 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:35626 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231494AbhJ0HXC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2021 03:23:02 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DE2218B5; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:20:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1635319235; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VFQpljpbCgLk+sF7MhiBXlFbEtTZaQ7ckeAcxQinKmk=; b=DKwrb7hT4Qg7y1F21w3bh2bfW9jeUm84vVnpTLTHDQZBYl4Rxg7mrjPSDIvXqsbYeC4NKw Rrwn8Gmi/xyBlNlXR2h7YA64uTd/gP3DA2LfBJyoD45O3C1VHcInRWNw1Yj1EkS9yqk6dp WBbMCtDbPpNEOjE5L0eiaAteZz8U/oY= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676D4A3B84; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:20:35 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Huangzhaoyang Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Zhaoyang Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: have kswapd only reclaiming use min protection on memcg Message-ID: References: <1635318110-1905-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1635318110-1905-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 27-10-21 15:01:50, Huangzhaoyang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > For the kswapd only reclaiming, there is no chance to try again on > this group while direct reclaim has. fix it by judging gfp flag. There is no problem description (same as in your last submissions. Have you looked at the patch submission documentation as recommended previously?). Also this patch doesn't make any sense. Both direct reclaim and kswapd use a gfp mask which contains __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM (see balance_pgdat for the kswapd part).. > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang Nacked-by: Michal Hocko > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 74296c2..41f5776 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -2704,7 +2704,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, > unsigned long protection; > > /* memory.low scaling, make sure we retry before OOM */ > - if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) { > + if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min > + && sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) { > protection = low; > sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; > } else { > -- > 1.9.1 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs