linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:52:36 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488916356.6405.4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170307133057.26182-1-mhocko@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1646 bytes --]

On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 14:30 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> Tetsuo Handa has reported [1][2] that direct reclaimers might get
> stuck
> in too_many_isolated loop basically for ever because the last few
> pages
> on the LRU lists are isolated by the kswapd which is stuck on fs
> locks
> when doing the pageout or slab reclaim. This in turn means that there
> is
> nobody to actually trigger the oom killer and the system is basically
> unusable.
> 
> too_many_isolated has been introduced by 35cd78156c49 ("vmscan:
> throttle
> direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already") to prevent
> from pre-mature oom killer invocations because back then no reclaim
> progress could indeed trigger the OOM killer too early. But since the
> oom detection rework 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom: rework oom detection")
> the allocation/reclaim retry loop considers all the reclaimable pages
> and throttles the allocation at that layer so we can loosen the
> direct
> reclaim throttling.

It only does this to some extent.  If reclaim made
no progress, for example due to immediately bailing
out because the number of already isolated pages is
too high (due to many parallel reclaimers), the code
could hit the "no_progress_loops > MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES"
test without ever looking at the number of reclaimable
pages.

Could that create problems if we have many concurrent
reclaimers?

It may be OK, I just do not understand all the implications.

I like the general direction your patch takes the code in,
but I would like to understand it better...

-- 
All rights reversed

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-07 19:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-07 13:30 [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Michal Hocko
2017-03-07 19:52 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2017-03-08  9:21   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-08 15:54     ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-09  9:12       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 14:16         ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-09 14:59           ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-09 18:05   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-03-09 22:18     ` Rik van Riel
2017-03-10 10:27       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-10 10:20     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-10 11:44       ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-21 10:37         ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-23 10:24         ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-24 12:39           ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2017-04-24 13:06             ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-04-25  6:33               ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2017-06-30  0:14         ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-30 13:32           ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-30 15:59             ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-06-30 16:19               ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-01 11:43                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-05  8:19                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-05  8:20                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-06 10:48                     ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-03-09 14:31 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-10  7:48 Michal Hocko
2017-07-10 13:16 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-07-10 13:58 ` Rik van Riel
2017-07-10 16:58   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-07-10 17:09     ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19 22:20 ` Andrew Morton
2017-07-20  6:56   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-21 23:01     ` Andrew Morton
2017-07-24  6:50       ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-20  1:54 ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-20 10:44   ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-24  7:01     ` Hugh Dickins
2017-07-24 11:12       ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-07-20 13:22   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24  7:03     ` Hugh Dickins

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=1488916356.6405.4.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).