On Fri 22-07-16 11:12:59, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 09:49:13AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 22-07-16 11:43:30, Zhou Chengming wrote: > > > In !global_reclaim(sc) case, we should update sc->nr_reclaimed after each > > > shrink_slab in the loop. Because we need the correct sc->nr_reclaimed > > > value to see if we can break out. > > > > Does this actually change anything? Maybe I am missing something but > > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages which is the main entry for the memcg > > reclaim doesn't set reclaim_state. I don't remember why... Vladimir? > > We don't set reclaim_state on memcg reclaim, because there might be a > lot of unrelated slab objects freed from the interrupt context (e.g. > RCU freed) while we're doing memcg reclaim. Obviously, we don't want > them to contribute to nr_reclaimed. > > Link to the thread with the problem discussion: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142132698209680&w=2 Ohh, now I rememeber again. Thanks for the refresh ;) So the patch doesn't make any difference in the end. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>