Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757362Ab2F0Tsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:48:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:55636 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756046Ab2F0Tsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:48:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:48:41 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Glauber Costa cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Lameter , devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Tejun Heo , Suleiman Souhlal Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed. In-Reply-To: <4FEADA55.4060409@parallels.com> Message-ID: References: <1340633728-12785-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340633728-12785-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FEADA55.4060409@parallels.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1226 Lines: 31 On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > @@ -2206,7 +2214,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup > > *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > > * unlikely to succeed so close to the limit, and we fall back > > > * to regular pages anyway in case of failure. > > > */ > > > - if (nr_pages == 1 && ret) > > > + if (nr_pages <= NR_PAGES_TO_RETRY && ret) > > > return CHARGE_RETRY; > > Changed to costly order. > 1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER was the suggestion. > One more thing. The original version of this patch included > a cond_resched() here, that was also removed. From my re-reading > of the code in page_alloc.c and vmscan.c now, I tend to think > this is indeed not needed, since any cond_resched()s that might > be needed to ensure the safety of the code will be properly > inserted by the reclaim code itself, so there is no need for us > to include any when we signal that a retry is needed. > For __GFP_WAIT, that sounds like a safe guarantee. -- 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/