Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 20:48:29 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        mhocko@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during
 reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Message-ID: <20210519194829.sess6lhfzlmccpdu@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20210519192321.3247175-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <YKVn69o1UizH0kJD@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YKVn69o1UizH0kJD@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 2021-05-19 20:32 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:23:21PM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -4252,6 +4252,9 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
> >  	if (!order)
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > +	if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > +		goto out;
> 
> I think 'goto out' will be confusing.  It'll output a tracepoint, which
> isn't going to record that a fatal signal is pending, so it'll cause
> some head scratching for someone looking through the traces.  I
> think we should just return false here and skip the tracepoint.

I agree. Having said this, I do plan to send a patch to illustrate why
compaction should not retry to avoid possible confusion. Nevertheless, I am
happy to modify as per your request.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin