From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751515AbdBUJkp (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:40:45 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47424 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751041AbdBUJkj (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:40:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:40:34 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: david@fromorbit.com, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, mgorman@suse.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Message-ID: <20170221094034.GF15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170125130014.GO32377@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170127144906.GB4148@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201701290027.AFB30799.FVtFLOOOJMSHQF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170130085546.GF8443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170202101415.GE22806@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> 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 Fri 03-02-17 19:57:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 30-01-17 09:55:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Sun 29-01-17 00:27:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > [...] > > > > Regarding [1], it helped avoiding the too_many_isolated() issue. I can't > > > > tell whether it has any negative effect, but I got on the first trial that > > > > all allocating threads are blocked on wait_for_completion() from flush_work() > > > > in drain_all_pages() introduced by "mm, page_alloc: drain per-cpu pages from > > > > workqueue context". There was no warn_alloc() stall warning message afterwords. > > > > > > That patch is buggy and there is a follow up [1] which is not sitting in the > > > mmotm (and thus linux-next) yet. I didn't get to review it properly and > > > I cannot say I would be too happy about using WQ from the page > > > allocator. I believe even the follow up needs to have WQ_RECLAIM WQ. > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170125083038.rzb5f43nptmk7aed@techsingularity.net > > > > Did you get chance to test with this follow up patch? It would be > > interesting to see whether OOM situation can still starve the waiter. > > The current linux-next should contain this patch. > > So far I can't reproduce problems except two listed below (cond_resched() trap > in printk() and IDLE priority trap are excluded from the list). OK, so it seems that all the distractions are handled now and linux-next should provide a reasonable base for testing. You said you weren't able to reproduce the original long stalls on too_many_isolated(). I would be still interested to see those oom reports and potential anomalies in the isolated counts before I send the patch for inclusion so your further testing would be more than appreciated. Also stalls > 10s without any previous occurrences would be interesting. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f198.google.com (mail-wr0-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFBF6B0038 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:40:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f198.google.com with SMTP id s10so13220729wrc.1 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d9si9596151wrd.163.2017.02.21.01.40.38 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:40:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:40:34 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Message-ID: <20170221094034.GF15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170125130014.GO32377@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170127144906.GB4148@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201701290027.AFB30799.FVtFLOOOJMSHQF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170130085546.GF8443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170202101415.GE22806@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: david@fromorbit.com, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, mgorman@suse.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 03-02-17 19:57:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 30-01-17 09:55:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Sun 29-01-17 00:27:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > [...] > > > > Regarding [1], it helped avoiding the too_many_isolated() issue. I can't > > > > tell whether it has any negative effect, but I got on the first trial that > > > > all allocating threads are blocked on wait_for_completion() from flush_work() > > > > in drain_all_pages() introduced by "mm, page_alloc: drain per-cpu pages from > > > > workqueue context". There was no warn_alloc() stall warning message afterwords. > > > > > > That patch is buggy and there is a follow up [1] which is not sitting in the > > > mmotm (and thus linux-next) yet. I didn't get to review it properly and > > > I cannot say I would be too happy about using WQ from the page > > > allocator. I believe even the follow up needs to have WQ_RECLAIM WQ. > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170125083038.rzb5f43nptmk7aed@techsingularity.net > > > > Did you get chance to test with this follow up patch? It would be > > interesting to see whether OOM situation can still starve the waiter. > > The current linux-next should contain this patch. > > So far I can't reproduce problems except two listed below (cond_resched() trap > in printk() and IDLE priority trap are excluded from the list). OK, so it seems that all the distractions are handled now and linux-next should provide a reasonable base for testing. You said you weren't able to reproduce the original long stalls on too_many_isolated(). I would be still interested to see those oom reports and potential anomalies in the isolated counts before I send the patch for inclusion so your further testing would be more than appreciated. Also stalls > 10s without any previous occurrences would be interesting. Thanks! -- 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