Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi

> Thanks for your effort, Kosaki.
> But I still doubt this patch is good.
> 
> This patch makes early oom killing in hibernation as it skip
> all_unreclaimable check.
> Normally,  hibernation needs many memory so page_reclaim pressure
> would be big in small memory system. So I don't like early give up.

Wait. When occur big pressure? hibernation reclaim pressure
(sc->nr_to_recliam) depend on physical memory size. therefore
a pressure seems to don't depend on the size.


> Do you think my patch has a problem? Personally, I think it's very
> simple and clear. :)

To be honest, I dislike following parts. It's madness on madness.

	static bool zone_reclaimable(struct zone *zone)
	{
	        if (zone->all_unreclaimable)
	                return false;
	
	        return zone->pages_scanned < zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6;
	}


The function require a reviewer know 

 o pages_scanned and all_unreclaimable are racy
 o at hibernation, zone->all_unreclaimable can be false negative,
   but can't be false positive.

And, a function comment of all_unreclaimable() says

	 /*
	  * As hibernation is going on, kswapd is freezed so that it can't mark
	  * the zone into all_unreclaimable. It can't handle OOM during hibernation.
	  * So let's check zone's unreclaimable in direct reclaim as well as kswapd.
	  */

But, now it is no longer copy of kswapd algorithm. 

If you strongly prefer this idea even if you hear above explanation,
please consider to add much and much comments. I can't say
current your patch is enough readable/reviewable.

Thanks.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/