From d6622f6365dbf31e9534a440daecdb9b04804aa4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yisheng Xie Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 14:53:57 -0700 Subject: mm/vmscan: more restrictive condition for retry in do_try_to_free_pages By reviewing code, I find that when enter do_try_to_free_pages, the may_thrash is always clear, and it will retry shrink zones to tap cgroup's reserves memory by setting may_thrash when the former shrink_zones reclaim nothing. However, when memcg is disabled or on legacy hierarchy, or there do not have any memcg protected by low limit, it should not do this useless retry at all, for we do not have any cgroup's reserves memory to tap, and we have already done hard work but made no progress, which as Michal pointed out in former version, we are trying hard to control the retry logical of page alloctor, and the current additional round of reclaim is just lame. Therefore, to avoid this unneeded retrying and make code more readable, we remove the may_thrash field in scan_control, instead, introduce memcg_low_reclaim and memcg_low_skipped, and only retry when memcg_low_skipped, by setting memcg_low_reclaim. [xieyisheng1@huawei.com: remove may_thrash field, introduce mem_cgroup_reclaim] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1490191893-5923-1-git-send-email-ysxie@foxmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1490191893-5923-1-git-send-email-ysxie@foxmail.com Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie Acked-by: Michal Hocko Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner Suggested-by: Michal Hocko Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt Acked-by: Johannes Weiner Cc: Mel Gorman Cc: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Rik van Riel Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/vmscan.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'mm/vmscan.c') diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 8ce39867140b..e54c882d6789 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -97,8 +97,13 @@ struct scan_control { /* Can pages be swapped as part of reclaim? */ unsigned int may_swap:1; - /* Can cgroups be reclaimed below their normal consumption range? */ - unsigned int may_thrash:1; + /* + * Cgroups are not reclaimed below their configured memory.low, + * unless we threaten to OOM. If any cgroups are skipped due to + * memory.low and nothing was reclaimed, go back for memory.low. + */ + unsigned int memcg_low_reclaim:1; + unsigned int memcg_low_skipped:1; unsigned int hibernation_mode:1; @@ -2512,8 +2517,10 @@ static bool shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) unsigned long scanned; if (mem_cgroup_low(root, memcg)) { - if (!sc->may_thrash) + if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim) { + sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; continue; + } mem_cgroup_events(memcg, MEMCG_LOW, 1); } @@ -2768,9 +2775,10 @@ retry: return 1; /* Untapped cgroup reserves? Don't OOM, retry. */ - if (!sc->may_thrash) { + if (sc->memcg_low_skipped) { sc->priority = initial_priority; - sc->may_thrash = 1; + sc->memcg_low_reclaim = 1; + sc->memcg_low_skipped = 0; goto retry; } -- cgit v1.2.3-55-g7522