Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1543786
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 |
| Date | 2016-12-16 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sP918-11E-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sONjY-3Bv-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <sOVrc-uT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sP918-11E-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote: > On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started > > in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay > > tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could > > check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen > > allocation stalls from this path quite recently > > Just double checking, are you asking why we're using GFP_NOFS to avoid going > into btrfs from the btrfs writepages call, or are you asking why we aren't > allowing highmem? I am more interested in the NOFS part. Why cannot this be a full GFP_KERNEL context? What kind of locks we would lock up when recursing to the fs via slab shrinkers? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-16 00:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 08:50 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 17:00 +0100
[PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 17:00 +0100
[PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-12-16 18:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 23:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-12-17 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-18 17:40 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-17 01:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-17 14:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-12-17 15:50 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-17 18:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-17 22:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-12-18 06:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-19 14:50 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-20 03:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-21 08:40 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-12-21 12:10 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-21 12:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-22 11:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-22 11:30 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-22 11:40 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2016-12-22 11:50 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-22 20:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-22 22:50 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-23 12:00 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-23 13:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-23 14:00 +0100
[RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-23 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-23 23:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-26 13:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-26 20:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-27 09:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-27 12:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-27 12:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-27 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> - 2016-12-27 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-28 10:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org> - 2016-12-27 20:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-28 10:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-12-29 02:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-29 10:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-12-30 03:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-30 11:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-12-29 01:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-12-29 02:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-29 10:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> - 2016-12-30 11:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-30 12:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> - 2016-12-30 13:50 +0100
Re: [lkp-developer] [mm, memcg] d18e2b2aca: WARNING:at_mm/memcontrol.c:#mem_cgroup_update_lru_size Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-26 13:30 +0100
Re: [lkp-developer] [mm, memcg] d18e2b2aca: WARNING:at_mm/memcontrol.c:#mem_cgroup_update_lru_size Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-26 14:00 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on "Xin Zhou" <xin.zhou@gmx.com> - 2016-12-18 01:40 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-16 23:20 +0100
Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-17 00:40 +0100
csiph-web