Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:09:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170710170933.GE7071@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170710165859.GA12036@cmpxchg.org>

On Mon 10-07-17 12:58:59, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:58:03AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 09:48 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 
> > > Johannes and Rik had some concerns that this could lead to premature
> > > OOM kills. I agree with them that we need a better throttling
> > > mechanism. Until now we didn't give the issue described above a high
> > > priority because it usually required a really insane workload to
> > > trigger. But it seems that the issue can be reproduced also without
> > > having an insane number of competing threads [3].
> > 
> > My worries stand, but lets fix the real observed bug, and not worry
> > too much about the theoretical bug for now.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

Thanks to both of you. Just to make it clear. I really do want to
address the throttling problem longterm properly. I do not have any
great ideas to be honest.  I am busy with other things so it might be
quite some time before I come up with something.

-- 
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>