From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:14:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161216221420.GF7645@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1da4691d-d0da-a620-020c-c2e968c2a5ec@fb.com>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:14:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161216221420.GF7645@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1da4691d-d0da-a620-020c-c2e968c2a5ec@fb.com>
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
--
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 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 123+ 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
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 [this message]
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
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=20161216221420.GF7645@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.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=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: link
Be 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.