On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:04:16 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kame, > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > How about this ? > > == > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Current memory cgroup's code tends to assume page_size == PAGE_SIZE > > and arrangement for THP is not enough yet. > > > > This is one of fixes for supporing THP. This adds > > mem_cgroup_check_margin() and checks whether there are required amount of > > free resource after memory reclaim. By this, THP page allocation > > can know whether it really succeeded or not and avoid infinite-loop > > and hangup. > > > > Total fixes for do_charge()/reclaim memory will follow this patch. > > If this patch is only related to THP, I think patch order isn't good. > Before applying [2/4], huge page allocation will retry without > reclaiming and loop forever by below part. > > @@ -1854,9 +1858,6 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct > } else > mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(fail_res, res); > > - if (csize > PAGE_SIZE) /* change csize and retry */ > - return CHARGE_RETRY; > - > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT)) > return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK; > > Am I missing something? > You're right. But - This patch oder doesn't affect bi-sect of the bug. because 2 bugs seems to be the same. - This patch implements a leaf function for the real fix. Then, I think patch order is not problem here. Thank you for pointing out. 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>