From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED97AC433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA0020814 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="lkBaXTV2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404606AbgE2B4x (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36466 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391555AbgE2B4w (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x341.google.com (mail-wm1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::341]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771C3C08C5CA for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x341.google.com with SMTP id v19so1414910wmj.0 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=lkBaXTV2ZUB6ZO5yX3Ng0K/CASCbc9oNlaDIc8KLZ8e4v2cb+z5+AxOSC0HUqdLw42 pPHQXKJiXMf7fSmverIul8xSND7c0ygaABLVaG0hqIXTL8OJ4e0fS8l8+kZ0LHaXgNsT f3Y+1qQWXh34SIawtNNfPuqOwbkRTPMzu6he4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=SGbIsmZm/9J/lVOxHDLrqndEvxB4wM3kSHG7yArSbGL1WUHyLC9HdXKsFYFGl/Vcuk KbZWgqbZ6UzeZ7woCch8Cwy7e2Y+j4FCo6c8DaEvLMkzlxj1kAO3b6YUqgZ+lX6XKY3Q eu76yMuhLhzwf+b6mV+7DcUyDFIfglNdiYEfNsckmHA6UZkq/5g47YaW/dBQ/ZKEt3HM HvRAJRSOZnqOYXRU28HGB+U2r8NVKKY9AyIiwpTzmxaTQj7NnUFwQerJQOZKkFSenOo5 NS1/3prpVLzn7klGGLKcsm3unXoBzNJju8QuQoutddDZYa9lfjA8nI43TBnlZZiGoEWs hirQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530blEaNhFi4FVR2aFKDyQn856WqdEP6ESLV6OMjX7Pr5tTCGQV2 Yngmu5T2zgDUuNanOYWTZBgplg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1kaceNrBzDvGLjsUvi/4uBliHtVGdHPjh2oD497Ebo468RL7eFjpFK3j2MrZfogR+PRA4Bg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c096:: with SMTP id r22mr6033969wmh.92.1590717405871; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:8432:8a00:56e1:adff:fe3f:49ed]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q11sm1858042wrv.67.2020.05.28.18.56.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Yafang Shao Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Michal Hocko , Anders Roxell , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , linux-ext4 , linux-block , Andrew Morton , open list , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , Chao Yu , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , Chao Yu , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Cgroups Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.2 (2020-05-25) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED829C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB5C2075F for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="lkBaXTV2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AEB5C2075F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 33C8B8001A; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2ECF680010; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1DBBF8001A; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.38]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079A580010 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBEB127B for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76868092854.17.drop57_3b45e280ed84d Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E992180D0180 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: drop57_3b45e280ed84d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5258 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id r15so1395248wmh.5 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=lkBaXTV2ZUB6ZO5yX3Ng0K/CASCbc9oNlaDIc8KLZ8e4v2cb+z5+AxOSC0HUqdLw42 pPHQXKJiXMf7fSmverIul8xSND7c0ygaABLVaG0hqIXTL8OJ4e0fS8l8+kZ0LHaXgNsT f3Y+1qQWXh34SIawtNNfPuqOwbkRTPMzu6he4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=Yo+NB97c7pdVntMe8xxeyIFLbIdKodwsmNm3369C/szWd29TjHcZru1O60ZxQbnd+A zAb2R1ZD48/TLkLm54AIeb1sdzmsNqY5yzjN9PJDo908XTe1XXaeYv9+02s6XdBQTGyr PB+HnG/5SZ3NoVgCbcLZzhHyF83bMyiurxBWxe9BCWb8f4w3TJRZmJqUnIOxoLXGLmGs 1jgy8ayrwuk3ZtUwS63og54gRJQ64NPbLmy0iqqTUDc3BR9ayismSWGkNbf30K+Nx4ZC H9Ro+qiNThj/ZVvFS6aW+uFXZlVtpyH8gKiunQLl5S78Ev3RtBklsg0fbSuVmUArw5F2 8Llg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tgSMYl20trpNLV5LpoBztgdYA4rFSUqWYHLH5cWSqqKQDQ+ZV VQDHMxP8Bni0jLMEZFSjblrwgw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1kaceNrBzDvGLjsUvi/4uBliHtVGdHPjh2oD497Ebo468RL7eFjpFK3j2MrZfogR+PRA4Bg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c096:: with SMTP id r22mr6033969wmh.92.1590717405871; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:8432:8a00:56e1:adff:fe3f:49ed]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q11sm1858042wrv.67.2020.05.28.18.56.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Yafang Shao Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Michal Hocko , Anders Roxell , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , linux-ext4 , linux-block , Andrew Morton , open list , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , Chao Yu , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , Chao Yu , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Cgroups Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.2 (2020-05-25) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9E992180D0180 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8E6C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B920204EA for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="SiRsE/rq"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="WQkhJ36G"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="lkBaXTV2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9B920204EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jeUi2-0002iv-Na; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:25:22 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jeUi1-0002ik-KG for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:25:21 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=SiRsE/rqsN+QdXZIcBZKDZJpzK PdICJbhsm82eWIhxfRM/0a5hOJ4CJUWfYkanB80UNPGqVFWKDph7vR/IARmbGZSoRxsL4mxZULB/K HzS6Ux50gNBO2qUHdVZZnz4SKTM5ECHhH3JIaEcoClk/HQOdLGkzovvrD/M33qopuxdU=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=WQkhJ36GmaR3i+DOcia8HhuhU/ b6zUkikgpDYuF2xVn89j8Xwyv7i2UcweRTcQym2AbCM/s1+eGj4IgilQsYPTiKbYfQ2K08E/z5EkQ BD8IBqo2jsdc6bUCAmWX3uA8BdpY2LjTTiirF1aYT2fvi27lbrjIMZl+eH4RnKfeGktQ=; Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1jeUhq-002Bui-7l for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:25:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l26so1452977wme.3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 19:25:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=lkBaXTV2ZUB6ZO5yX3Ng0K/CASCbc9oNlaDIc8KLZ8e4v2cb+z5+AxOSC0HUqdLw42 pPHQXKJiXMf7fSmverIul8xSND7c0ygaABLVaG0hqIXTL8OJ4e0fS8l8+kZ0LHaXgNsT f3Y+1qQWXh34SIawtNNfPuqOwbkRTPMzu6he4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=e0neKX9vL+UDPsAIivtKAkjEraYMZFNE1AEUcKSwX82hI+kB0C7jOGICaiEyMUt2jv 5cypOj3w6BZYSeltlX+rtqgmh5jjypLXrRtqvoqU1IPWheIz5TjAhslZTWLBif/0ds41 9x/F9vVt11GV2s75isqI1fzaWWmdGLoMlL+Zd3s4sLUuTuT00SHBf5Q0H80MrMyS589I r31PLyIjjBkmtynuPid1v2+lFpiaZSymNctyLQ5fJN/AG/Cp+5KxVuMXmzVoYUjAVOLK 0QDQXHxqcl0gRRHsrgNrMJmuCFu6Hk9SpTd3ay3xYR99z+4XPIPc4cSBxXMdyt5kohTU nptQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XfU+fph2ToWIy3t8M0KVLgGJktsBqgIky5G0WyREzY3LGZ2zb MPd1Zo684LdmkiLga4Kld4L1/aG5wJiqMz1v X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1kaceNrBzDvGLjsUvi/4uBliHtVGdHPjh2oD497Ebo468RL7eFjpFK3j2MrZfogR+PRA4Bg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c096:: with SMTP id r22mr6033969wmh.92.1590717405871; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:8432:8a00:56e1:adff:fe3f:49ed]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q11sm1858042wrv.67.2020.05.28.18.56.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Yafang Shao Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.2 (2020-05-25) X-Headers-End: 1jeUhq-002Bui-7l Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Michal Hocko , linux-mm , Andreas Dilger , Cgroups , Andrea Arcangeli , Anders Roxell , Naresh Kamboju , Hugh Dickins , Matthew Wilcox , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-ext4 , Arnd Bergmann , linux-block , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , open list , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-) _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Down Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=lkBaXTV2ZUB6ZO5yX3Ng0K/CASCbc9oNlaDIc8KLZ8e4v2cb+z5+AxOSC0HUqdLw42 pPHQXKJiXMf7fSmverIul8xSND7c0ygaABLVaG0hqIXTL8OJ4e0fS8l8+kZ0LHaXgNsT f3Y+1qQWXh34SIawtNNfPuqOwbkRTPMzu6he4= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Yafang Shao Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Michal Hocko , Anders Roxell , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , linux-ext4 , linux-block , Andrew Morton , open list , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , Chao Yu , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , Chao Yu , lkft- Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-)