From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758100AbcIURSg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:18:36 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33445 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755735AbcIURSd (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:18:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:18:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrew Morton , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Ralf-Peter Rohbeck , Olaf Hering , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Message-ID: <20160921171830.GH24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to > Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction > feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide > a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an almost > complete solution that instead improved compaction reliability. > > This series completes the mmotm solution and reintroduces the compaction > feedback into OOM decisions. The first two patches restore the state of mmotm > before the temporary solution was merged, the last patch should be the missing > piece for reliability. The third patch restricts the hardened compaction to > non-costly orders, since costly orders don't result in OOMs in the first place. > > Some preliminary testing suggested that this approach should work, but I would > like to ask all who experienced the regression to please retest this. You will > need to apply this series on top of tag mmotm-2016-08-31-16-06 from the mmotm > git tree [2]. Thanks in advance! We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe side I would preffer to have _all_ the shortcuts out of the way in the highest priority. It is true that this will cause COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE so keep retrying but still a complication to understand the workflow. What do you think? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66A0280256 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id l138so49406070wmg.3 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com. [74.125.82.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o21si32988949wmg.65.2016.09.21.10.18.32 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id w84so9751258wmg.0 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:18:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Message-ID: <20160921171830.GH24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrew Morton , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Ralf-Peter Rohbeck , Olaf Hering , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel On Tue 06-09-16 15:52:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to > Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction > feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to provide > a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an almost > complete solution that instead improved compaction reliability. > > This series completes the mmotm solution and reintroduces the compaction > feedback into OOM decisions. The first two patches restore the state of mmotm > before the temporary solution was merged, the last patch should be the missing > piece for reliability. The third patch restricts the hardened compaction to > non-costly orders, since costly orders don't result in OOMs in the first place. > > Some preliminary testing suggested that this approach should work, but I would > like to ask all who experienced the regression to please retest this. You will > need to apply this series on top of tag mmotm-2016-08-31-16-06 from the mmotm > git tree [2]. Thanks in advance! We still do not ignore fragindex in the full priority. This part has always been quite unclear to me so I cannot really tell whether that makes any difference or not but just to be on the safe side I would preffer to have _all_ the shortcuts out of the way in the highest priority. It is true that this will cause COMPACT_NOT_SUITABLE_ZONE so keep retrying but still a complication to understand the workflow. What do you think? -- 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: email@kvack.org