[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161012074838.GA7688@bbox>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:38 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Sangseok Lee <sangseok.lee@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: make unreserve highatomic functions reliable
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:33:28AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-10-16 14:33:36, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -2138,8 +2146,10 @@ static bool unreserve_highatomic_pageblock(const struct alloc_context *ac)
> > */
> > set_pageblock_migratetype(page, ac->migratetype);
> > ret = move_freepages_block(zone, page, ac->migratetype);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > - return ret;
> > + if (!drain && ret) {
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> I've already mentioned that during the previous discussion. This sounds
Yeb, we did but I sent wrong version in my git tree. :(
> overly aggressive to me. Why do we want to drain the whole reserve and
> risk that we won't be able to build up a new one after OOM. Doing one
> block at the time should be sufficient IMHO.
I will resend with updating with every reveiw points.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists