On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > @@ -2206,7 +2214,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup > > *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > > * unlikely to succeed so close to the limit, and we fall back > > > * to regular pages anyway in case of failure. > > > */ > > > - if (nr_pages == 1 && ret) > > > + if (nr_pages <= NR_PAGES_TO_RETRY && ret) > > > return CHARGE_RETRY; > > Changed to costly order. > 1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER was the suggestion. > One more thing. The original version of this patch included > a cond_resched() here, that was also removed. From my re-reading > of the code in page_alloc.c and vmscan.c now, I tend to think > this is indeed not needed, since any cond_resched()s that might > be needed to ensure the safety of the code will be properly > inserted by the reclaim code itself, so there is no need for us > to include any when we signal that a retry is needed. > For __GFP_WAIT, that sounds like a safe guarantee. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>