On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:33 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:41:51 +0000 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -6355,6 +6355,38 @@ static ssize_t memory_oom_group_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > return nbytes;
> > }
> >
> > +static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> > + size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
> > + unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> > + unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + buf = strstrip(buf);
> > + err = page_counter_memparse(buf, "", &nr_to_reclaim);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> > + unsigned long reclaimed;
> > +
> > + if (signal_pending(current))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > + nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,
> > + GFP_KERNEL, true);
> > +
> > + if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
> > + }
>
> Is there any way in which this can be provoked into triggering the
> softlockup detector?
memory.reclaim is similar to memory.high w.r.t. reclaiming memory,
except that memory.reclaim is stateless, while the kernel remembers
the state set by memory.high. So memory.reclaim should not bring in
any new risks of triggering soft lockup, if any.
> Is it optimal to do the MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES loop in the kernel?
> Would additional flexibility be gained by letting userspace handle
> retrying?
I agree it is better to retry from the userspace.
