From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
greg@suse.cz, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:56:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160822105653.GI13596@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160822101614.GA314@x4>
On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM
> > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of
> > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because
> > of a high fragmentation and compaction failing to make any forward
> > progress. While investigating this we have found out that the compaction
> > just gives up too early. Vlastimil has been working on compaction
> > improvement for quite some time and his series [6] is already sitting
> > in mmotm tree. This already helps a lot because it drops some heuristics
> > which are more aimed at lower latencies for high orders rather than
> > reliability. Joonsoo has then identified further problem with too many
> > blocks being marked as unmovable [7] and Vlastimil has prepared a patch
> > on top of his series [8] which is also in the mmotm tree now.
> >
> > That being said, the regression is real and should be fixed for 4.7
> > stable users. [6][8] was reported to help and ooms are no longer
> > reproducible. I know we are quite late (rc3) in 4.8 but I would vote
> > for mergeing those patches and have them in 4.8. For 4.7 I would go
> > with a partial revert of the detection rework for high order requests
> > (see patch below). This patch is really trivial. If those compaction
> > improvements are just too large for 4.8 then we can use the same patch
> > as for 4.7 stable for now and revert it in 4.9 after compaction changes
> > are merged.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4
>
> For the report [1] above:
>
> markus@x4 linux % cat .config | grep CONFIG_COMPACTION
> # CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
Hmm, without compaction and a heavy fragmentation then I am afraid we
cannot really do much. What is the reason to disable compaction in the
first place?
--
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:[~2016-08-22 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-22 9:32 OOM detection regressions since 4.7 Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 10:05 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 10:54 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 13:31 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 14:02 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2016-08-23 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-25 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-25 7:17 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 14:52 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 14:54 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 15:07 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-29 15:59 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-29 17:52 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-28 5:50 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-08-25 20:30 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-26 6:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-26 20:17 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-22 10:16 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 10:56 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-08-22 11:01 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 11:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 11:20 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-23 4:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-23 7:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 7:40 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-23 7:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-24 6:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 5:01 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-24 7:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 7:29 ` Joonsoo Kim
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=20160822105653.GI13596@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
--cc=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=greg@suse.cz \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=markus@trippelsdorf.de \
--cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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).