Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri 11-03-16 11:08:05, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > > > becasuse we might have invoked

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri 11-03-16 11:08:05, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > > > becasuse we might have invoked

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > > > is might be

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > > > is might be

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Fri 11-03-16 04:17:30, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on > that. It is again based on the number of retries

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on > that. It is again based on the number of retries

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/09/2016 12:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on > that. It is again based on the number of

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/09/2016 12:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient > becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which > is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on > that. It is again based on the number of

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on that. It is again based on the number of retries loop. I was also playing with an idea of doing

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

Joonsoo has pointed out that this attempt is still not sufficient becasuse we might have invoked only a single compaction round which is might be not enough. I fully agree with that. Here is my take on that. It is again based on the number of retries loop. I was also playing with an idea of doing

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/08/2016 03:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-03-16 15:34:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> --- a/include/linux/compaction.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/compaction.h >>> @@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ enum compact_result { >>> /* compaction should continue to another pageblock */ >>>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/08/2016 03:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-03-16 15:34:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> --- a/include/linux/compaction.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/compaction.h >>> @@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ enum compact_result { >>> /* compaction should continue to another pageblock */ >>>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Tue 08-03-16 15:34:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/08/2016 02:42 PM, 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 > >

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On Tue 08-03-16 15:34:37, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/08/2016 02:42 PM, 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

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/08/2016 02:42 PM, 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 is

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more

On 03/08/2016 02:42 PM, 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 is done > because

[PATCH 3/3] 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 3/3] 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