From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754021AbdBVCEm (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:04:42 -0500 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp ([202.181.97.72]:40758 "EHLO www262.sakura.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753600AbdBVCEd (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:04:33 -0500 To: mhocko@kernel.org 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 From: Tetsuo Handa References: <20170202101415.GE22806@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170221094034.GF15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702212335.DJB30777.JOFMHSFtVLQOOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170221155337.GK15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20170221155337.GK15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-Id: <201702221102.EHH69234.OQLOMFSOtJFVHF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.51 PL2] X-Accept-Language: ja,en,zh Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:02:21 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 21-02-17 23:35:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I confirmed that linux-next-20170221 with kmallocwd applied can reproduce > > infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem. Please send your patches to linux-next. > > So I assume that you didn't see the lockup with the patch applied and > the OOM killer has resolved the situation by killing other tasks, right? > Can I assume your Tested-by? No. I tested linux-next-20170221 which does not include your patch. I didn't test linux-next-20170221 with your patch applied. Your patch will avoid infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem in shrink_inactive_list(). But we need to test different workloads by other people. Thus, I suggest you to send your patches to linux-next without my testing. > > Thanks for your testing! > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com (mail-oi0-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FC76B038A for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:04:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id 65so59917747oig.3 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:04:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp. [2001:e42:101:1:202:181:97:72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x1si23728428pfa.171.2017.02.21.18.04.17 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone From: Tetsuo Handa References: <20170202101415.GE22806@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170221094034.GF15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702212335.DJB30777.JOFMHSFtVLQOOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170221155337.GK15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20170221155337.GK15595@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-Id: <201702221102.EHH69234.OQLOMFSOtJFVHF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:02:21 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mhocko@kernel.org 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 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 21-02-17 23:35:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I confirmed that linux-next-20170221 with kmallocwd applied can reproduce > > infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem. Please send your patches to linux-next. > > So I assume that you didn't see the lockup with the patch applied and > the OOM killer has resolved the situation by killing other tasks, right? > Can I assume your Tested-by? No. I tested linux-next-20170221 which does not include your patch. I didn't test linux-next-20170221 with your patch applied. Your patch will avoid infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem in shrink_inactive_list(). But we need to test different workloads by other people. Thus, I suggest you to send your patches to linux-next without my testing. > > Thanks for your testing! > -- > 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