On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:28:10PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> Various places in the kernel - largely in filesystems - respond to a
> memory allocation failure by looping around and re-trying.
.....
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> index aca874d33fe6..f2f2a5b28808 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> @@ -214,6 +214,27 @@ static inline void fs_reclaim_acquire(gfp_t gfp_mask) { }
> static inline void fs_reclaim_release(gfp_t gfp_mask) { }
> #endif
>
> +/* Any memory-allocation retry loop should use
> + * memalloc_retry_wait(), and pass the flags for the most
> + * constrained allocation attempt that might have failed.
> + * This provides useful documentation of where loops are,
> + * and a central place to fine tune the waiting as the MM
> + * implementation changes.
> + */
> +static inline void memalloc_retry_wait(gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +{
> + gfp_flags = current_gfp_context(gfp_flags);
> + if ((gfp_flags & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) &&
> + !(gfp_flags & __GFP_NORETRY))
> + /* Probably waited already, no need for much more */
> + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> + else
> + /* Probably didn't wait, and has now released a lock,
> + * so now is a good time to wait
> + */
> + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ/50);
> +}
The existing congestion_wait() calls io_schedule_timeout() under
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE conditions.
Does changing all these calls just to a plain
schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() make any difference to behaviour?
At least process accounting will appear different (uninterruptible
sleep instead of IO wait), and I suspect that the block plug
flushing in io_schedule() might be a good idea to retain for all the
filesystems that call this function from IO-related routines.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
