On Mon 16-06-14 15:54:24, Johannes Weiner wrote: > There is no reason why oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL charges should > try to reclaim only once when every other charge tries several times > before giving up. Make them all retry the same number of times.
OK, this makes sense for oom-disabled and __GFP_NOFAIL but does it make sense to do additional reclaim for tasks with fatal_signal_pending? It is little bit unexpected, because we bypass if the condition happens before the reclaim but then we ignore it. > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index e946f7439b16..52550bbff1ef 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -2566,7 +2566,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mem_cgroup > *memcg, > bool oom) > { > unsigned int batch = max(CHARGE_BATCH, nr_pages); > - int nr_oom_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > + int nr_retries = MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES; > struct mem_cgroup *mem_over_limit; > struct res_counter *fail_res; > unsigned long nr_reclaimed; > @@ -2638,6 +2638,9 @@ retry: > if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit)) > goto retry; > > + if (nr_retries--) > + goto retry; > + > if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) > goto bypass; > > @@ -2647,9 +2650,6 @@ retry: > if (!oom) > goto nomem; > > - if (nr_oom_retries--) > - goto retry; > - > mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, get_order(batch)); > nomem: > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) > -- > 2.0.0 > -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
