On Wed 19-07-17 18:54:40, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> You probably won't welcome getting into alternatives at this late stage;
> but after hacking around it one way or another because of its pointless
> lockups, I lost patience with that too_many_isolated() loop a few months
> back (on realizing the enormous number of pages that may be isolated via
> migrate_pages(2)), and we've been running nicely since with something like:
>
> bool got_mutex = false;
>
> if (unlikely(too_many_isolated(pgdat, file, sc))) {
> if (mutex_lock_killable(&pgdat->too_many_isolated))
> return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> got_mutex = true;
> }
> ...
> if (got_mutex)
> mutex_unlock(&pgdat->too_many_isolated);
>
> Using a mutex to provide the intended throttling, without an infinite
> loop or an arbitrary delay; and without having to worry (as we often did)
> about whether those numbers in too_many_isolated() are really appropriate.
> No premature OOMs complained of yet.
>
> But that was on a different kernel, and there I did have to make sure
> that PF_MEMALLOC always prevented us from nesting: I'm not certain of
> that in the current kernel (but do remember Johannes changing the memcg
> end to make it use PF_MEMALLOC too). I offer the preview above, to see
> if you're interested in that alternative: if you are, then I'll go ahead
> and make it into an actual patch against v4.13-rc.
I would rather get rid of any additional locking here and my ultimate
goal is to make throttling at the page allocator layer rather than
inside the reclaim.
--
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>
