[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3x109XxGY02Y7Vp@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:10:11 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
minchan@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org, sjenning@...hat.com,
ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] zsmalloc: Implement writeback mechanism for
zsmalloc
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:35:18PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (22/11/22 01:09), Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:42:20PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (22/11/21 22:12), Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:15:20AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > On (22/11/18 16:15), Nhat Pham wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > What I meant was: if zs_reclaim_page() makes only partial progress
> > > with the current LRU tail zspage and returns -EAGAIN, then we just
> > > don't increment `total` and continue looping in zs_zpool_shrink().
> >
> > Hm, but it breaks on -EAGAIN, it doesn't continue.
>
> Yes. "What if it would continue". Would it make sense to not
> break on EAGAIN?
>
> while (total < pages) {
> ret = zs_reclaim_page(pool);
> if (ret == -EAGAIN)
> continue;
> if (ret < 0)
> break;
> total++;
> }
>
> Then we don't need retry loop in zs_reclaim_page().
But that's an indefinite busy-loop?
I don't see what the problem with limited retrying in
zs_reclaim_page() is. It's robust and has worked for years.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists