Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-05-16 23:39:14, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-05-16 23:57:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > > @@ -340

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, un

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the > discussion Okay. >> > +static inline bool >> > +should_co

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned > > > int order, > > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the discussion > > +static inline bool > > +should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result > > comp

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-03 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pa

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-03 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-04-21 Thread Hillf Danton
> > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is done > because there is no guarantee that the reclaimable