Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages
From: Johannes Weiner
Date: Fri Mar 17 2017 - 14:40:13 EST
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:36:48PM +0800, Yisheng Xie wrote:
> @@ -100,6 +100,9 @@ struct scan_control {
> /* Can cgroups be reclaimed below their normal consumption range? */
> unsigned int may_thrash:1;
>
> + /* Did we have any memcg protected by the low limit */
> + unsigned int memcg_low_protection:1;
These are both bad names. How about the following pair?
/*
* Cgroups are not reclaimed below their configured memory.low,
* unless we threaten to OOM. If any cgroups are skipped due to
* memory.low and nothing was reclaimed, go back for memory.low.
*/
unsigned int memcg_low_skipped:1
unsigned int memcg_low_reclaim:1;
> @@ -2557,6 +2560,8 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> unsigned long scanned;
>
> if (mem_cgroup_low(root, memcg)) {
> + sc->memcg_low_protection = 1;
> +
> if (!sc->may_thrash)
> continue;
if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) {
sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1;
continue;
}
> mem_cgroup_events(memcg, MEMCG_LOW, 1);
> @@ -2808,7 +2813,7 @@ static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> return 1;
>
> /* Untapped cgroup reserves? Don't OOM, retry. */
> - if (!sc->may_thrash) {
> + if (sc->memcg_low_protection && !sc->may_thrash) {
if (sc->memcg_low_skipped) {
[...]
sc->memcg_low_reclaim = 1;
goto retry;
}