Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 23:39:14, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 23:39:14, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 23:57:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 23:57:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > >> > > @@

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 17:56 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >> > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask,

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the > discussion Okay. >> > +static inline

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

2016-05-04 17:53 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the > discussion Okay. >> > +static inline bool >> >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned > > > int order, > > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 15:31:12, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > @@ -3408,6 +3456,17 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned > > > int order, > > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the discussion > > +static inline bool > > +should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed 04-05-16 15:01:24, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] Please try to trim your responses it makes it much easier to follow the discussion > > +static inline bool > > +should_compact_retry(unsigned int order, enum compact_result > >

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > > if none of the eligible zones has any requested

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:01:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:25PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

> > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is done > because there is no guarantee

Re: [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

> > From: Michal Hocko > > should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations > if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages > available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is done > because there is no guarantee that the reclaimable

[PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

From: Michal Hocko should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is done because there is no guarantee that the

[PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

From: Michal Hocko should_reclaim_retry will give up retries for higher order allocations if none of the eligible zones has any requested or higher order pages available even if we pass the watermak check for order-0. This is done because there is no guarantee that the reclaimable and currently