Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1585166
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone |
| Date | 2017-02-21 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tdff4-Kd-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <t4gan-5qf-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <t4EPo-4iC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5fYC-1PU-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6mEG-2zZ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6JUC-QC-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri 03-02-17 19:57:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 30-01-17 09:55:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Sun 29-01-17 00:27:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > [...] > > > > Regarding [1], it helped avoiding the too_many_isolated() issue. I can't > > > > tell whether it has any negative effect, but I got on the first trial that > > > > all allocating threads are blocked on wait_for_completion() from flush_work() > > > > in drain_all_pages() introduced by "mm, page_alloc: drain per-cpu pages from > > > > workqueue context". There was no warn_alloc() stall warning message afterwords. > > > > > > That patch is buggy and there is a follow up [1] which is not sitting in the > > > mmotm (and thus linux-next) yet. I didn't get to review it properly and > > > I cannot say I would be too happy about using WQ from the page > > > allocator. I believe even the follow up needs to have WQ_RECLAIM WQ. > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170125083038.rzb5f43nptmk7aed@techsingularity.net > > > > Did you get chance to test with this follow up patch? It would be > > interesting to see whether OOM situation can still starve the waiter. > > The current linux-next should contain this patch. > > So far I can't reproduce problems except two listed below (cond_resched() trap > in printk() and IDLE priority trap are excluded from the list). OK, so it seems that all the distractions are handled now and linux-next should provide a reasonable base for testing. You said you weren't able to reproduce the original long stalls on too_many_isolated(). I would be still interested to see those oom reports and potential anomalies in the isolated counts before I send the patch for inclusion so your further testing would be more than appreciated. Also stalls > 10s without any previous occurrences would be interesting. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-21 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-21 15:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-21 17:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-22 03:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-22 09:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-26 07:40 +0100
csiph-web