The patch titled
Subject: mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to should_reclaim_retry()
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-page_alloc-pull-no_progress_loops-update-to-should_reclaim_retry.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Subject: mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to should_reclaim_retry()
The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so
it makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also
consistent with should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No
functional change.
[hillf.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: fix missing pointer dereferences]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160926162025.21555-3-vbabka@xxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/page_alloc.c~mm-page_alloc-pull-no_progress_loops-update-to-should_reclaim_retry mm/page_alloc.c
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c~mm-page_alloc-pull-no_progress_loops-update-to-should_reclaim_retry
+++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3402,16 +3402,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_ma
static inline bool
should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
- bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops)
+ bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
{
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
/*
+ * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
+ * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
+ * always increment the no progress counter for them
+ */
+ if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+ *no_progress_loops = 0;
+ else
+ (*no_progress_loops)++;
+
+ /*
* Make sure we converge to OOM if we cannot make any progress
* several times in the row.
*/
- if (no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
+ if (*no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
return false;
/*
@@ -3426,7 +3436,7 @@ should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, uns
unsigned long reclaimable;
available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
- available -= DIV_ROUND_UP(no_progress_loops * available,
+ available -= DIV_ROUND_UP((*no_progress_loops) * available,
MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES);
available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
@@ -3642,18 +3652,8 @@ retry:
if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
goto nopage;
- /*
- * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
- * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
- * always increment the no progress counter for them
- */
- if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
- no_progress_loops = 0;
- else
- no_progress_loops++;
-
if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags,
- did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
+ did_some_progress > 0, &no_progress_loops))
goto retry;
/*
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from vbabka@xxxxxxx are
fs-select-add-vmalloc-fallback-for-select2.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
