Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Message-ID: <d531e69c-f0b4-f857-657f-48d981db3923@quicinc.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:30:04 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mm: page_alloc: drain pcp lists before oom kill
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
CC:     <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        <david@redhat.com>, <vbabka@suse.cz>, <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        <quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <cover.1699104759.git.quic_charante@quicinc.com>
 <a8e16f7eb295e1843f8edaa1ae1c68325c54c896.1699104759.git.quic_charante@quicinc.com>
 <ZUy1dNvbvHc6gquo@tiehlicka>
 <5c7f25f9-f86b-8e15-8603-e212b9911cac@quicinc.com>
 <ZVNQdQKQAMjgOK9y@tiehlicka>
 <342a8854-eef5-f68a-15e5-275de70e3f01@quicinc.com>
 <ZVTRKTi2QCoMiv50@tiehlicka>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZVTRKTi2QCoMiv50@tiehlicka>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Thanks Michal.

On 11/15/2023 7:39 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Also If you have any comments on [PATCH V2 2/3] mm: page_alloc: correct
>> high atomic reserve calculations will help me.
> I do not have a strong opinion on that one to be honest. I am not even
> sure that reserving a full page block (4MB) on small systems as
> presented is really a good use of memory.

May be other way to look at that patch is comment is really not being
reflected in the code. It says, " Limit the number reserved to 1
pageblock or roughly 1% of a zone.", but the current code is making it 2
pageblocks. So, for 4M block size, it is > 1%.

A second patch, that I will post, like not reserving the high atomic
page blocks on small systems -- But how to define the meaning of small
systems is not sure. Instead will let the system administrators chose
this through either:
a) command line param, high_atomic_reserves=off, on by default --
Another knob, so admins may really not like this?
b) CONFIG_HIGH_ATOMIC_RESERVES, which if not defined, will not reserve.

Please lmk If you have any more suggestions here?

Also, I am thinking to request Andrew to pick [PATCH V2 1/3] patch and
take these discussions separately in a separate thread.

Thanks,
Charan