On Fri 23-09-16 12:47:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 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.

[hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com: fix missing pointer dereferences]
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <redacted>
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <redacted>

OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a

Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the
number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not
stricly needed.

Even if it is needed which I am not really sure about it would be
easier to track than in the middle of another thread.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>