Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932497AbZIDFXl (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 01:23:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932159AbZIDFXl (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 01:23:41 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:35103 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932153AbZIDFXk (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 01:23:40 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:21:43 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" Subject: Re: [mmotm][experimental][PATCH] coalescing charge Message-Id: <20090904142143.15ffcb53.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090904141157.4640ec1e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20090902093438.eed47a57.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090902134114.b6f1a04d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090902182923.c6d98fd6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090903141727.ccde7e91.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090904131835.ac2b8cc8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090904141157.4640ec1e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2564 Lines: 77 On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:11:57 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > > It looks basically good. I'll do some tests with all patches applied. > > > > > thanks. > > > it seems that these patches make rmdir stall again... > This batched charge patch seems not to be the (only) suspect, though. > Ouch, no probelm with the latest mmotm ? I think this charge-uncharge-offload patch set doesn't use css_set()/get()... Hm, softlimit related parts ? > > > > @@ -1288,23 +1364,25 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > VM_BUG_ON(css_is_removed(&mem->css)); > > > > + if (mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) > > > > + goto done; > > > > + if (consume_stock(mem)) > > > > + goto charged; > > > > > IMHO, it would be better to check consume_stock() every time in the while loop below, > because someone might have already refilled the stock while the current context > sleeps in reclaiming memory. > Hm, make sense. I'll add it. > > > > while (1) { > > > > int ret = 0; > > > > unsigned long flags = 0; > > > > > > > > - if (mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) > > > > - goto done; > > > > - ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE, &fail_res); > > > > + ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->res, CHARGE_SIZE, &fail_res); > > > > if (likely(!ret)) { > > > > if (!do_swap_account) > > > > break; > > > > - ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->memsw, PAGE_SIZE, > > > > + ret = res_counter_charge(&mem->memsw, CHARGE_SIZE, > > > > &fail_res); > > > > if (likely(!ret)) > > > > break; > > > > /* mem+swap counter fails */ > > > > - res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, PAGE_SIZE); > > > > + res_counter_uncharge(&mem->res, CHARGE_SIZE); > > > > flags |= MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_NOSWAP; > > > > mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, > > > > memsw); > How about changing pre-charge size according to the loop count ? > IMHO, it would be better to disable pre-charge at least in nr_retries==0 case, > i.e. it is about to causing oom. ya, I wonder I should do that. but it increases complexity if in bad conding. let me try. Thanks, -Kame > > > P.S. I will not be so active next week. > > Thanks, > Daisuke Nishimura. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/