On 02/22/2012 03:35 AM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
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?
Yes, it would. I'll work on that. -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>