On 06/27/2012 11:48 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > 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. That is what I meant - to the costly order suggestion - , should have been more explicit. >> 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>