On Fri 09-06-17 12:03:47, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I tried __GFP_NORETRY in the belief that __GFP_RECLAIM was effective. It
> struggles with handling reclaim of our dirty buffers and relies on
> reclaim via kswapd. As a result, a single pass of direct reclaim is
> unreliable when i915 occupies the majority of available memory, and the
> only means of effectively waiting on kswapd to amke progress is by not
> setting the __GFP_NORETRY flag and lopping. That leaves us with the
> dilemma of invoking the oomkiller instead of propagating the allocation
> failure back to userspace where it can be handled more gracefully (one
> hopes). In the future we may have __GFP_MAYFAIL to allow repeats up until
> we genuinely run out of memory and the oomkiller would have been invoked.
> Until then, let the oomkiller wreck havoc.
>
> v2: Stop playing with side-effects of gfp flags and await __GFP_MAYFAIL
> v3: Update comments that direct reclaim only appears to be ignoring our
> dirty buffers!
>
> Fixes: 24f8e00a8a2e ("drm/i915: Prefer to report ENOMEM rather than incur the
> oom for gfx allocations")
> Testcase: igt/gem_tiled_swapping
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
OK, this looks good to me. I will follow with my __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL and
will convert this caller to use it sometimes next week.
Thanks!
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index ca61a0be1458..b22145a876c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2404,7 +2404,20 @@ i915_gem_object_get_pages_gtt(struct
> drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> if (!*s) {
> /* reclaim and warn, but no oom */
> gfp = mapping_gfp_mask(mapping);
> - gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY;
> +
> + /* Our bo are always dirty and so we require
> + * kswapd to reclaim our pages (direct reclaim
> + * does not effectively begin pageout of our
> + * buffers on its own). However, direct reclaim
> + * only waits for kswapd when under allocation
> + * congestion. So as a result __GFP_RECLAIM is
> + * unreliable and fails to actually reclaim our
> + * dirty pages -- unless you try over and over
> + * again with !__GFP_NORETRY. However, we still
> + * want to fail this allocation rather than
> + * trigger the out-of-memory killer and for
> + * this we want the future __GFP_MAYFAIL.
> + */
> }
> } while (1);
>
> --
> 2.11.0
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
