Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-107601-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:40:34 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: liuhailong@oppo.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nathan@kernel.org,
	ndesaulniers@google.com, trix@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	surenb@google.com, zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com,
	quic_charante@quicinc.com, yuzhao@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "mm: skip CMA pages when they are not
 available"
Message-ID: <ZfmV0uEMgZ2Dzdnm@tiehlicka>
References: <20240314141516.31747-1-liuhailong@oppo.com>
 <20240315081803.2223-1-liuhailong@oppo.com>
 <ZflTCY-Oaxm0U70u@tiehlicka>
 <CAGsJ_4w0EHuAwvSFuqUsMO-bLjJwCmN_qjL6NuA043-4rgfgsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4w0EHuAwvSFuqUsMO-bLjJwCmN_qjL6NuA043-4rgfgsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue 19-03-24 19:09:18, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:56 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 15-03-24 16:18:03, liuhailong@oppo.com wrote:
> > > From: "Hailong.Liu" <liuhailong@oppo.com>
> > >
> > > This reverts
> > > commit b7108d66318a ("Multi-gen LRU: skip CMA pages when they are not eligible")
> > > commit 5da226dbfce3 ("mm: skip CMA pages when they are not available")
> > >
> > > skip_cma may cause system not responding. if cma pages is large in lru_list
> > > and system is in lowmemory, many tasks would direct reclaim and waste
> > > cpu time to isolate_lru_pages and return.
> > >
> > > Test this patch on android-5.15 8G device
> > > reproducer:
> > > - cma_declare_contiguous 3G pages
> > > - set /proc/sys/vm/swappiness 0 to enable direct_reclaim reclaim file
> > >   only.
> > > - run a memleak process in userspace
> >
> > Does this represent a sane configuration? CMA memory is unusable for
> > kernel allocations and memleak process is also hard to reclaim due to
> > swap suppression. Isn't such a system doomed to struggle to reclaim any
> > memory? Btw. how does the same setup behave with the regular LRU
> > implementation? My guess would be that it would struggle as well.
> 
> I assume the regular LRU implementation you are talking about is the LRU
> without skip_cma()?

No, I mean standard LRU reclaim implementation rather than MGLRU.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs