On Mon 04-08-14 16:35:02, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Charge reclaim and OOM currently use the charge batch variable, but
> batching is already disabled at that point.  To simplify the charge
> logic, the batch variable is reset to the original request size when
> reclaim is entered, so it's functionally equal, but it's misleading.
> 
> Switch reclaim/OOM to nr_pages, which is the original request size.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]>

> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 8d65dadeec1b..ec4dcf1b9562 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2574,7 +2574,7 @@ retry:
>  
>       nr_reclaimed = mem_cgroup_reclaim(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, flags);
>  
> -     if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= batch)
> +     if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
>               goto retry;
>  
>       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
> @@ -2588,7 +2588,7 @@ retry:
>        * unlikely to succeed so close to the limit, and we fall back
>        * to regular pages anyway in case of failure.
>        */
> -     if (nr_reclaimed && batch <= (1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> +     if (nr_reclaimed && nr_pages <= (1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
>               goto retry;
>       /*
>        * At task move, charge accounts can be doubly counted. So, it's
> @@ -2606,7 +2606,7 @@ retry:
>       if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>               goto bypass;
>  
> -     mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, get_order(batch));
> +     mem_cgroup_oom(mem_over_limit, gfp_mask, get_order(nr_pages));
>  nomem:
>       if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
>               return -ENOMEM;
> -- 
> 2.0.3
> 

-- 
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/

Reply via email to