Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1451864
| From | Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 |
| Date | 2016-07-28 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rZQJI-4VL-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rXmZs-8w7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rZ5B7-7Yz-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rZa7Q-23s-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rZNiO-2tg-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > > ended up doing -- fast reclaiming young pages from a zone. > > My expectation on my test case is that reclaimers should kick out > actively used page and make a room for 'fork' because parallel readers > would work even if reading pages are not cached. > > It is sensitive on reclaimers efficiency because parallel readers > read pages repeatedly and disturb reclaim. I thought that it is a > good test for node-lru which changes reclaimers efficiency for lower > zone. However, as you said, this efficiency comes from the cost > distorting page aging so now I'm not sure if it is a problem that we > need to consider. Let's skip it? > I think we should skip it for now. The alterations are too specific to a test case that is very close to being genuinely OOM. Adjusting timing for one OOM case may just lead to complains that OOM is detected too slowly in others. > Anyway, thanks for tracking down the problem. > My pleasure, thanks to both you and Minchan for persisting with this as we got some important fixes out of the discussion. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-26 10:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-26 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-28 08:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-28 12:30 +0200
csiph-web