Re: [PATCH 02/11] memcg: Reclaim when more than one page needed.

[David Rientjes]

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 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/