On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:14:51 +0100 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Gleb, > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:00:24PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 02:46:45PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > The charging code can encounter a charge size that is bigger than a > > > regular page in two situations: one is a batched charge to fill the > > > per-cpu stocks, the other is a huge page charge. > > > > > > This code is distributed over two functions, however, and only the > > > outer one is aware of huge pages. In case the charging fails, the > > > inner function will tell the outer function to retry if the charge > > > size is bigger than regular pages--assuming batched charging is the > > > only case. And the outer function will retry forever charging a huge > > > page. > > > > > > This patch makes sure the inner function can distinguish between batch > > > charging and a single huge page charge. It will only signal another > > > attempt if batch charging failed, and go into regular reclaim when it > > > is called on behalf of a huge page. > > > > > Yeah, that is exactly the case I am debugging right now. Came up with > > different solution: pass page_size to __mem_cgroup_do_charge() and > > compare csize with page_size (not CHARGE_SIZE). Not sure which solution > > it more correct. > > I guess it makes no difference, but using CHARGE_SIZE gets away > without adding another parameter to __mem_cgroup_do_charge(). > My new one is similar to this ;) Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>