Re: [PATCH v4] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom
From: Gang Li <hidden>
Date: 2023-08-17 08:41:38
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Apologize for the extremely delayed response. I was previously occupied with work unrelated to the Linux kernel. On 2023/4/11 22:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
I believe it still wouldn't hurt to be more specific here. CONSTRAINT_CPUSET is rather obscure. Looking at this just makes my head spin. /* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */ for_each_zone_zonelist_nodemask(zone, z, oc->zonelist, highest_zoneidx, oc->nodemask) if (!cpuset_zone_allowed(zone, oc->gfp_mask)) cpuset_limited = true;quoted
Does this even work properly and why? prepare_alloc_pages setsoc->nodemask to current->mems_allowed but the above gives us cpuset_limited only if there is at least one zone/node that is not oc->nodemask compatible. So it seems like this wouldn't ever get set unless oc->nodemask got reset somewhere. This is a maze indeed.Is there
In __alloc_pages:
/*
* Restore the original nodemask if it was potentially replaced with
* &cpuset_current_mems_allowed to optimize the fast-path attempt.
*/
ac.nodemask = nodemask;
page = __alloc_pages_slowpath(alloc_gfp, order, &ac);
__alloc_pages set ac.nodemask back to mempolicy before call __alloc_pages_slowpath.
any reason why we cannot rely on __GFP_HARWALL here? Or should we
In prepare_alloc_pages:
if (cpusets_enabled()) {
*alloc_gfp |= __GFP_HARDWALL;
...
}
Since __GFP_HARDWALL is set as long as cpuset is enabled, I think we can use it to determine if we are under the constraint of CPUSET. But I have a question: Why we always set __GFP_HARDWALL when cpuset is enabled, regardless of the value of cpuset.mem_hardwall? Thanks, Gang Li