Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ion: Consider ion pool pages as indirectly reclaimable
To:     vjitta@codeaurora.org
Cc:     sumit.semwal@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        arve@android.com, tkjos@android.com, maco@android.com,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
References: <1524627830-17187-1-git-send-email-vjitta@codeaurora.org>
 <8618859b-06f9-39a7-80a9-af36cf9faf9f@redhat.com>
 <fb3f0974e9e83b33e7eac267aeecf130@codeaurora.org>
 <cabda3bb75177e37863155deaaf2cb46@codeaurora.org>
From:   Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <38cf04f1-bded-7edf-4455-6e6c284277b8@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:30:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cabda3bb75177e37863155deaaf2cb46@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/27/2018 02:29 AM, vjitta@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-04-27 10:40, vjitta@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2018-04-25 21:17, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2018 08:43 PM, vjitta@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>>> From: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@codeaurora.org>
>>>>
>>>> An issue is observed where mallocs are failing due to overcommit failure.
>>>> The failure happens when there is high ION page pool since ION page
>>>> pool is not considered reclaimable by the overcommit calculation code.
>>>> This change considers ion pool pages as indirectly reclaimable and thus
>>>> accounted as available memory in the overcommit calculation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c | 5 +++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c
>>>> index db8f614..9bc56eb 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_page_pool.c
>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ static void ion_page_pool_add(struct ion_page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>>           list_add_tail(&page->lru, &pool->low_items);
>>>>           pool->low_count++;
>>>>       }
>>>> +
>>>> +    mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(page), NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES,
>>>> +                (1 << (PAGE_SHIFT + pool->order)));
>>>>       mutex_unlock(&pool->mutex);
>>>>   }
>>>>   @@ -50,6 +53,8 @@ static struct page *ion_page_pool_remove(struct ion_page_pool *pool, bool high)
>>>>       }
>>>>         list_del(&page->lru);
>>>> +    mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(page), NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES,
>>>> +                -(1 << (PAGE_SHIFT + pool->order)));
>>>>       return page;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure this fixes the problem but I don't think we want to
>>> start throwing page adjustments into Ion. Why isn't this
>>> memory already considered reclaimable by existing calculations?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Laura
>>
>> You can refer to discussion here https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/5/361 introducing
>> NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES for the memory which is not currently considered
>> as reclaimable
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vijay
> 
> There was also discussion specific to ion in that thread you can find it here
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/25/642
> 
> Thanks,
> Vijay

Thanks for pointing that thread out. I'm still a little wary since
Ion is in staging but if the rest of mm are okay with it

Acked-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Laura