On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -5055,8 +5117,21 @@ int memcg_kmem_newpage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct page *page, unsigned lon
> {
> unsigned long size = pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> struct res_counter *fail;
> + int ret;
> + bool do_softlimit;
> +
> + ret = res_counter_charge(memcg_kmem(memcg), size, &fail);
> + if (unlikely(mem_cgroup_event_ratelimit(memcg,
> + MEM_CGROUP_TARGET_THRESH))) {
> +
> + do_softlimit = mem_cgroup_event_ratelimit(memcg,
> + MEM_CGROUP_TARGET_SOFTLIMIT);
> + mem_cgroup_threshold(memcg);
> + if (unlikely(do_softlimit))
> + mem_cgroup_update_tree(memcg, page);
> + }
>
> - return res_counter_charge(memcg_kmem(memcg), size, &fail);
> + return ret;
> }
It seems like this might cause a lot of kernel memory allocations to
fail whenever we are at the limit, even if we have a lot of
reclaimable memory, when we don't have independent accounting.
Would it be better to use __mem_cgroup_try_charge() here, when we
don't have independent accounting, in order to deal with this
situation?
-- Suleiman
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href