From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 13:35:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c7b69523-c141-d06c-bc02-953c7a939d91@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YLTJjJqemt5Uv9vP@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 5/31/21 1:33 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-05-21 15:29:01, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
>> A customer experienced a low-memory situation and decided to issue a
>> SIGKILL (i.e. a fatal signal). Instead of promptly terminating as one
>> would expect, the aforementioned task remained unresponsive.
>>
>> Further investigation indicated that the task was "stuck" in the
>> reclaim/compaction retry loop. Now, it does not make sense to retry
>> compaction when a fatal signal is pending.
>
> Is this really true in general? The memory reclaim is retried even when
> fatal signals are pending. Why should be compaction different? I do
> agree that retrying way too much is bad but is there any reason why this
> special case doesn't follow the max retry logic?
Compaction doesn't do anything if fatal signal is pending, it bails out
immediately and the checks are rather frequent. So why retry?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-31 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-19 19:23 [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 19:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-19 19:48 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 20:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 4:34 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-20 10:20 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-20 11:42 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 11:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-20 13:30 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 14:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-28 12:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 11:33 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31 11:35 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2021-05-31 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-20 11:09 ` [PATCH v3] " Matthew Wilcox
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=c7b69523-c141-d06c-bc02-953c7a939d91@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.