From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:47:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302154744.GN1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170302153002.GG3213@bfoster.bfoster>
On Thu 02-03-17 10:30:02, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:14:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I am not objecting to adding fatal_signal_pending as well I just thought
> > that from the logic POV breaking after reaching the minimum size is just
> > the right thing to do. We can optimize further by checking
> > fatal_signal_pending and reducing retries when we know it doesn't make
> > much sense but that should be done on top as an optimization IMHO.
> >
>
> I don't think of it as an optimization to not invoke calls (a
> non-deterministic number of times) that we know are going to fail, but
the point is that vmalloc failure modes are an implementation detail
which might change in the future. The fix should be really independent
on the current implementation that is why I think the
fatal_signal_pending is just an optimization.
> ultimately I don't care too much how it's framed or if it's done in
> separate patches or whatnot. As long as they are posted at the same
> time. ;)
Done
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Xiong Zhou <xzhou@redhat.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:47:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302154744.GN1404@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170302153002.GG3213@bfoster.bfoster>
On Thu 02-03-17 10:30:02, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:14:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I am not objecting to adding fatal_signal_pending as well I just thought
> > that from the logic POV breaking after reaching the minimum size is just
> > the right thing to do. We can optimize further by checking
> > fatal_signal_pending and reducing retries when we know it doesn't make
> > much sense but that should be done on top as an optimization IMHO.
> >
>
> I don't think of it as an optimization to not invoke calls (a
> non-deterministic number of times) that we know are going to fail, but
the point is that vmalloc failure modes are an implementation detail
which might change in the future. The fix should be really independent
on the current implementation that is why I think the
fatal_signal_pending is just an optimization.
> ultimately I don't care too much how it's framed or if it's done in
> separate patches or whatnot. As long as they are posted at the same
> time. ;)
Done
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-02 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-01 4:46 mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs Xiong Zhou
2017-03-01 4:46 ` Xiong Zhou
2017-03-02 0:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 0:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 5:19 ` Xiong Zhou
2017-03-02 5:19 ` Xiong Zhou
2017-03-02 6:41 ` Bob Liu
2017-03-02 6:41 ` Bob Liu
2017-03-02 6:41 ` Bob Liu
2017-03-02 6:41 ` Bob Liu
2017-03-02 6:47 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-03-02 6:47 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-03-02 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 9:23 ` Xiong Zhou
2017-03-02 9:23 ` Xiong Zhou
2017-03-02 10:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 10:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 10:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 10:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 10:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 10:53 ` mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269on xfs Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 10:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 12:24 ` mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs Brian Foster
2017-03-02 12:24 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 12:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 12:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 13:00 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 13:00 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 13:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 13:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-02 13:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 13:27 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 13:41 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 13:41 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 13:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 13:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 14:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 14:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 14:51 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 14:51 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:30 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:30 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfs: allow kmem_zalloc_greedy to fail Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: back off from kmem_zalloc_greedy if the task is killed Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 15:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 15:59 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:59 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfs: allow kmem_zalloc_greedy to fail Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 15:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 15:59 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 15:59 ` Brian Foster
2017-03-02 16:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 16:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 16:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-02 16:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-03 22:54 ` Dave Chinner
2017-03-03 22:54 ` Dave Chinner
2017-03-03 23:19 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-03 23:19 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-03-04 4:48 ` Dave Chinner
2017-03-04 4:48 ` Dave Chinner
2017-03-06 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:47 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-03-02 15:47 ` mm allocation failure and hang when running xfstests generic/269 on xfs Michal Hocko
2017-03-02 15:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-02 15:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20170302154744.GN1404@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=xzhou@redhat.com \
/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: link
Be 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.