From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:27:51 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160728102751.GB2799@techsingularity.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160728064432.GA28136@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > > ended up doing -- fast reclaiming young pages from a zone. > > My expectation on my test case is that reclaimers should kick out > actively used page and make a room for 'fork' because parallel readers > would work even if reading pages are not cached. > > It is sensitive on reclaimers efficiency because parallel readers > read pages repeatedly and disturb reclaim. I thought that it is a > good test for node-lru which changes reclaimers efficiency for lower > zone. However, as you said, this efficiency comes from the cost > distorting page aging so now I'm not sure if it is a problem that we > need to consider. Let's skip it? > I think we should skip it for now. The alterations are too specific to a test case that is very close to being genuinely OOM. Adjusting timing for one OOM case may just lead to complains that OOM is detected too slowly in others. > Anyway, thanks for tracking down the problem. > My pleasure, thanks to both you and Minchan for persisting with this as we got some important fixes out of the discussion. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:27:51 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160728102751.GB2799@techsingularity.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160728064432.GA28136@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > > ended up doing -- fast reclaiming young pages from a zone. > > My expectation on my test case is that reclaimers should kick out > actively used page and make a room for 'fork' because parallel readers > would work even if reading pages are not cached. > > It is sensitive on reclaimers efficiency because parallel readers > read pages repeatedly and disturb reclaim. I thought that it is a > good test for node-lru which changes reclaimers efficiency for lower > zone. However, as you said, this efficiency comes from the cost > distorting page aging so now I'm not sure if it is a problem that we > need to consider. Let's skip it? > I think we should skip it for now. The alterations are too specific to a test case that is very close to being genuinely OOM. Adjusting timing for one OOM case may just lead to complains that OOM is detected too slowly in others. > Anyway, thanks for tracking down the problem. > My pleasure, thanks to both you and Minchan for persisting with this as we got some important fixes out of the discussion. -- Mel Gorman 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:[~2016-07-28 10:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-07-21 14:10 [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: add per-zone lru list stat Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-22 15:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-22 15:51 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-21 14:10 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm, vmscan: Remove highmem_file_pages Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-22 15:53 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-22 15:53 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-25 8:09 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-25 8:09 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-25 9:23 ` [PATCH] mm, vmscan: remove highmem_file_pages -fix Mel Gorman 2016-07-25 9:23 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: Remove reclaim and compaction retry approximations Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:10 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-22 15:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-22 15:57 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-25 8:18 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-25 8:18 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-21 14:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: consider per-zone inactive ratio to deactivate Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:11 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 15:52 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-21 15:52 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-21 14:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm, vmscan: Account for skipped pages as a partial scan Mel Gorman 2016-07-21 14:11 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-22 16:02 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-22 16:02 ` Johannes Weiner 2016-07-25 8:39 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-25 8:39 ` Minchan Kim 2016-07-25 9:52 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-25 9:52 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-26 8:16 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 8:16 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 8:26 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 8:26 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 8:11 ` [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2 Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 8:11 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-26 12:50 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-26 12:50 ` Mel Gorman 2016-07-28 6:44 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-28 6:44 ` Joonsoo Kim 2016-07-28 10:27 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2016-07-28 10:27 ` Mel Gorman
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=20160728102751.GB2799@techsingularity.net \ --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \ --cc=minchan@kernel.org \ --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \ /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.