Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:21:53 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, pho@freebsd.org, Sushanth Rai <sushanth_rai@yahoo.com>, StevenSears <Steven.Sears@netapp.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Memory reserves or lack thereof Message-ID: <20121115182153.GF73505@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <50A52722.7050100@rice.edu> References: <20121112133638.GZ73505@kib.kiev.ua> <1352755682.93266.YahooMailClassic@web181701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20121112214808.GH73505@kib.kiev.ua> <50A181C9.7030209@rice.edu> <20121113115445.GK73505@kib.kiev.ua> <50A52722.7050100@rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--SYqiNNNZhxFUWlBJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:32:18AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 05:54, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 05:10:01PM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2012 3:48 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:28:02PM -0800, Sushanth Rai wrote:
> >>>> This patch still doesn't address the issue of M_NOWAIT calls driving
> >>>> the memory the all the way down to 2 pages, right ? It would be nice=
to
> >>>> have M_NOWAIT just do non-sleep version of M_WAITOK and M_USE_RESERVE
> >>>> flag to dig deep.
> >>> This is out of scope of the change. But it is required for any further
> >>> adjustements.
> >> I would suggest a somewhat different response:
> >>
> >> The patch does make M_NOWAIT into a "non-sleep version of M_WAITOK" an=
d=20
> >> does reintroduce M_USE_RESERVE as a way to specify "dig deep".
> >>
> >> Currently, both M_NOWAIT and M_WAITOK can drive the cache/free memory=
=20
> >> down to two pages. The effect of the patch is to stop M_NOWAIT at two=
=20
> >> pages rather than allowing it to continue to zero pages.
> >>
> >> When you say, "This is out of scope ...", I believe that you are=20
> >> referring to changing two pages into something larger. I agree that=
=20
> >> this is out of scope for the current change.
> > I referred exactly to the difference between M_USE_RESERVE set or not.
> > IMO this is what was asked by the question author. So yes, my mean of
> > the 'out of scope' is about tweaking the 'two pages reserve' in some
> > way.
>=20
> Since M_USE_RESERVE is no longer deprecated in HEAD, here is my proposed
> man page update to malloc(9):
>=20
> Index: share/man/man9/malloc.9
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- share/man/man9/malloc.9 (revision 243091)
> +++ share/man/man9/malloc.9 (working copy)
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
> .\" $NetBSD: malloc.9,v 1.3 1996/11/11 00:05:11 lukem Exp $
> .\" $FreeBSD$
> .\"
> -.Dd January 28, 2012
> +.Dd November 15, 2012
> .Dt MALLOC 9
> .Os
> .Sh NAME
> @@ -153,13 +153,12 @@ if
> .Dv M_WAITOK
> is specified.
> .It Dv M_USE_RESERVE
> -Indicates that the system can dig into its reserve in order to obtain the
> -requested memory.
> -This option used to be called
> -.Dv M_KERNEL
> -but has been renamed to something more obvious.
> -This option has been deprecated and is slowly being removed from the
> kernel,
> -and so should not be used with any new programming.
> +Indicates that the system can use its reserve of memory to satisfy the
> +request.
> +This option should only be used in combination with
> +.Dv M_NOWAIT
> +when an allocation failure cannot be tolerated by the caller without
> +catastrophic effects on the system.
> .El
> .Pp
> Exactly one of either
The text looks fine. Shouldn't the requirement for M_USE_RESERVE be also
expressed in KASSERT, like this:
diff --git a/sys/vm/vm_page.h b/sys/vm/vm_page.h
index d9e4692..f8a4f70 100644
--- a/sys/vm/vm_page.h
+++ b/sys/vm/vm_page.h
@@ -353,6 +351,9 @@ malloc2vm_flags(int malloc_flags)
{
int pflags;
=20
+ KASSERT((malloc_flags & M_USE_RESERVE) =3D=3D 0 ||
+ (malloc_flags & M_NOWAIT) !=3D 0,
+ ("M_USE_RESERVE requires M_NOWAIT"));
pflags =3D (malloc_flags & M_USE_RESERVE) !=3D 0 ? VM_ALLOC_INTERRUPT :
VM_ALLOC_SYSTEM;
if ((malloc_flags & M_ZERO) !=3D 0)
I understand that this could be added to places of the allocator's entries,
but I think that the page allocations are fine too.
--SYqiNNNZhxFUWlBJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlClMsEACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4j0IgCg13XFT6XbCsDMN5WoBBDH9PqB
ryAAnRYQkuydqqqPVjv2NnCGa+i/QIKQ
=iLp8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SYqiNNNZhxFUWlBJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121115182153.GF73505>