From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:31:51 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20161216173151.GA23182@cmpxchg.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20161216155808.12809-3-mhocko@kernel.org> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:58:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least > * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. > */ > - if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOFAIL))) > + if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) > return true; This makes sense, we should go back to what we had here. Because it's not that the reported OOMs are premature - there is genuinely no more memory reclaimable from the allocating context - but that this class of allocations should never invoke the OOM killer in the first place. > @@ -3737,6 +3752,16 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > */ > WARN_ON_ONCE(order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER); > > + /* > + * Help non-failing allocations by giving them access to memory > + * reserves but do not use ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS because this > + * could deplete whole memory reserves which would just make > + * the situation worse > + */ > + page = __alloc_pages_cpuset_fallback(gfp_mask, order, ALLOC_HARDER, ac); > + if (page) > + goto got_pg; > + But this should be a separate patch, IMO. Do we observe GFP_NOFS lockups when we don't do this? Don't we risk premature exhaustion of the memory reserves, and it's better to wait for other reclaimers to make some progress instead? Should we give reserve access to all GFP_NOFS allocations, or just the ones from a reclaim/cleaning context? All that should go into the changelog of a separate allocation booster patch, I think.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:31:51 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20161216173151.GA23182@cmpxchg.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20161216155808.12809-3-mhocko@kernel.org> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:58:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least > * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. > */ > - if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOFAIL))) > + if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) > return true; This makes sense, we should go back to what we had here. Because it's not that the reported OOMs are premature - there is genuinely no more memory reclaimable from the allocating context - but that this class of allocations should never invoke the OOM killer in the first place. > @@ -3737,6 +3752,16 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > */ > WARN_ON_ONCE(order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER); > > + /* > + * Help non-failing allocations by giving them access to memory > + * reserves but do not use ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS because this > + * could deplete whole memory reserves which would just make > + * the situation worse > + */ > + page = __alloc_pages_cpuset_fallback(gfp_mask, order, ALLOC_HARDER, ac); > + if (page) > + goto got_pg; > + But this should be a separate patch, IMO. Do we observe GFP_NOFS lockups when we don't do this? Don't we risk premature exhaustion of the memory reserves, and it's better to wait for other reclaimers to make some progress instead? Should we give reserve access to all GFP_NOFS allocations, or just the ones from a reclaim/cleaning context? All that should go into the changelog of a separate allocation booster patch, I think. -- 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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-16 17:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 155+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-12-15 22:57 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Nils Holland 2016-12-16 7:39 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 7:39 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner [this message] 2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 18:47 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland 2016-12-16 18:47 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 0:02 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-17 0:02 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-17 12:59 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 12:59 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 14:44 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-17 14:44 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-17 17:11 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 17:11 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 21:06 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-17 21:06 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-18 5:14 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-18 5:14 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-19 13:45 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-19 13:45 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-20 2:08 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-20 2:08 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-21 7:36 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-21 7:36 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-21 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-21 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-21 11:16 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-21 11:16 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-21 14:04 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-21 14:04 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-22 10:10 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-22 10:10 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-22 10:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-22 10:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-22 10:35 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-22 10:35 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-22 10:46 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-22 10:46 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-22 19:17 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-22 19:17 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-22 21:46 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-22 21:46 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-23 10:51 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 10:51 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 12:18 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-23 12:18 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-23 12:57 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 12:57 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 14:47 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 14:47 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-23 22:26 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-23 22:26 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-26 12:48 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:48 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 18:57 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-26 18:57 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-27 8:08 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 8:08 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 11:23 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-27 11:23 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-27 11:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 11:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 15:55 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 15:55 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 16:28 ` [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count kbuild test robot 2016-12-28 8:51 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-28 8:51 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-27 19:33 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland 2016-12-27 19:33 ` Nils Holland 2016-12-28 8:57 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-28 8:57 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-29 1:20 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 1:20 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-30 2:05 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-30 2:05 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-30 10:40 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-30 10:40 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-29 0:31 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 0:31 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 0:48 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 0:48 ` Minchan Kim 2016-12-29 8:52 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-29 8:52 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-30 10:19 ` Mel Gorman 2016-12-30 10:19 ` Mel Gorman 2016-12-30 11:05 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-30 11:05 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-30 12:43 ` Mel Gorman 2016-12-30 12:43 ` Mel Gorman 2016-12-25 22:25 ` [lkp-developer] [mm, memcg] d18e2b2aca: WARNING:at_mm/memcontrol.c:#mem_cgroup_update_lru_size kernel test robot 2016-12-25 22:25 ` kernel test robot 2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-18 0:28 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Xin Zhou 2016-12-16 18:15 ` OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Chris Mason 2016-12-16 18:15 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-16 22:14 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 22:14 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 22:47 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-16 22:47 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-16 23:31 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 23:31 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-16 19:50 ` Chris Mason 2016-12-16 19:50 ` Chris Mason -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2016-12-01 15:25 [PATCH 0/2] GFP_NOFAIL cleanups Michal Hocko 2016-12-01 15:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko 2016-12-01 15:25 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-02 7:23 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-12-02 7:23 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-12-05 13:45 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-05 13:45 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-05 14:10 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-05 14:10 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 8:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 8:27 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 10:38 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-06 10:38 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-06 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-12-06 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka 2016-12-06 19:25 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 19:25 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 19:22 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-06 19:22 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-08 12:53 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-08 12:53 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-08 13:47 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-08 13:47 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-11 11:23 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-11 11:23 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-11 13:53 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-11 13:53 ` Tetsuo Handa 2016-12-12 8:52 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-12 8:52 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-12 8:48 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-12 8:48 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-14 10:34 ` Michal Hocko 2016-12-14 10:34 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20161216173151.GA23182@cmpxchg.org \ --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=clm@fb.com \ --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \ --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=nholland@tisys.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.