On 09/23/2016 06:04 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:

quoted

----8<----
From a7921e57ba1189b9c08fc4879358a908c390e47c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlastimil Babka <redacted>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
 should_reclaim_retry()

The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it
makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with
should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <redacted>
---
 mm/page_alloc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 582820080601..a01359ab3ed6 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c

@@ -3401,16 +3401,26 @@ bool gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask)
 static inline bool
 should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
 		     struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
-		     bool did_some_progress, int no_progress_loops)
+		     bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
 {
 	struct zone *zone;
 	struct zoneref *z;

 	/*
+	 * Costly allocations might have made a progress but this doesn't mean
+	 * their order will become available due to high fragmentation so
+	 * always increment the no progress counter for them
+	 */
+	if (did_some_progress && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
+		no_progress_loops = 0;

s/no/*no/

quoted

+	else
+		no_progress_loops++;

s/no_progress_loops/(*no_progress_loops)/

Crap, thanks. I'm asking our gcc guy about possible warnings for this,
and some past mistake I've seen which would be *no_progress_loops++.
 

With that feel free to add
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <redacted>

Thanks!

----8<----