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:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:31:07 -0700
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        page-reclaim@google.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: multigenerational lru: aging
Message-ID: <YeewK/cYG4MXV4f3@google.com>
References: <20220104202227.2903605-1-yuzhao@google.com>
 <20220104202227.2903605-7-yuzhao@google.com>
 <YdcU4P+XWkbDUUoO@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Yddh+APQGg8dKRgw@google.com>
 <Ydf/7DDu94fMs0CG@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <YdgBL1dRk1KmyXJS@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Yduuyrk/AZG717Hs@google.com>
 <YdxEqFPLDf+wI0xX@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <Yd/0Sgxy+jLm5cqd@google.com>
 <YeAU0n1puxyr4N6Y@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YeAU0n1puxyr4N6Y@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-01-22 02:43:38, Yu Zhao wrote:
> [...]
> > > > The bottom line is I can try various optimizations, e.g., preallocate
> > > > a few buffers for a limited number of page walkers and if this number
> > > > has been reached, fallback to the rmap-based function. But I have yet
> > > > to see evidence that calls for additional complexity.
> > > 
> > > I would disagree here. This is not an optimization. You should be
> > > avoiding allocations from the memory reclaim because any allocation just
> > > add a runtime behavior complexity and potential corner cases.
> > 
> > Would __GFP_NOMEMALLOC address your concern? It prevents allocations
> > from accessing the reserves even under PF_MEMALLOC.
> 
> __GFP_NOMEMALLOC would deal with the complete memory depletion concern
> for sure but I am not sure how any of these allocations would succeed
> when called from the direct reclaim. Some access to memory reserves is
> necessary if you insist on allocating from the reclaim process.
> 
> You can have a look at the limited memory reserves access by oom victims
> for an example of how this can be done.

Thanks. I'll change GFP_KERNEL to __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC.
__GFP_HIGH allows some access to memory reserves and __GFP_NOMEMALLOC
prevents the complete depletion. Basically the combination lower the
min watermark by 1/2, and we have been using them for
add_to_swap_cache().