On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:42 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 06:44:52 -0700 Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > @@ -2583,12 +2606,23 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > * reclaim, the cost of mismatch is negligible.
> > > */
> > > do {
> > > - if (page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) > READ_ONCE(memcg->high)) {
> > > - /* Don't bother a random interrupted task */
> > > - if (in_interrupt()) {
> > > + bool mem_high, swap_high;
> > > +
> > > + mem_high = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) >
> > > + READ_ONCE(memcg->high);
> > > + swap_high = page_counter_read(&memcg->swap) >
> > > + READ_ONCE(memcg->swap_high);
> > > +
> > > + /* Don't bother a random interrupted task */
> > > + if (in_interrupt()) {
> > > + if (mem_high) {
> > > schedule_work(&memcg->high_work);
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > + continue;
> >
> > break?
>
> On a closer look I think continue is correct. In irq we only care
> about mem_high, because there's nothing we can do in a work context
> to penalize swap. So the loop is shortened.
>
Yes, you are right.
