[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230112093812.x7kgdgvyd2fzrwex@techsingularity.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:38:12 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] mm/page_alloc: Explicitly record high-order atomic
allocations in alloc_flags
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 04:36:01PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-01-23 15:16:27, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > A high-order ALLOC_HARDER allocation is assumed to be atomic. While that
> > is accurate, it changes later in the series. In preparation, explicitly
> > record high-order atomic allocations in gfp_to_alloc_flags(). There is
> > a slight functional change in that OOM handling avoids using high-order
> > reserve until it has to.
>
> I do not follow the oom handling part. IIRC we are dropping highatomic
> reserves before triggering oom. Something might have changed down the
> path but I can still see unreserve_highatomic_pageblock in
> should_reclaim_retry.
>
That comment is now stale and should be removed because I fixed up the
OOM oddities. At this point, a series resubmission is needed because a
few changelogs have to be updated.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists