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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 6CAFBC433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7E820708 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:06:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3C7E820708 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B07238D0027; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AB7228D001D; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:06:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 97F318D0027; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:06:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0243.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8281B8D001D for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2015B1EE6 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:06:24 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77011152288.22.cork20_290f96b26eb4 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16A618038E6A for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:06:23 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: cork20_290f96b26eb4 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6081 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by imf48.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f2so16884028wrp.7 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 05:06:23 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=4wU011wHSnWuBlHf2T56JsZw7TsOaUVP+MGeL9UXru4=; b=Uxom0jLhDDTYSoUx8e2vRgX8QRI/QTR1VKor/fHjD9a+R7Q/2PzdERU/kW1rvSk3eB NjSMjzPNpCSBaaN+A3XJ2uFP68l252NbCCYLDhkmy/UgcgQFwKS8qh3Z4w3rUh/hVIdt npeW2lsTo1EQihKDho+loKsd9vxqVi/7wb+K3QOEbznbQ+akUDvkMvBOnlLIWlPVGOJw d0N1lJbUPnGn16ALPlBGMt9OOotGYZNOVV4kiTNuT5bY6HijUUTBi1iT4gUrs8xlAsym I+ynrYS4PND7MOSXLP+cc3xZI6GdB5VhN6/qYF+7BiGXWj/RbKcyytaLWSTLdf0EvsNU sa5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ISDJB6x/N8QBCqWnZCD1O4u0f/EQDroP+q6j0FyVksBPEHkvu zrrdiHx0+q54A7hoFttXb+I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOPID0b4MJHIKKkNKsXwgnltSadf5kAcW0ldbS5sUjQj7VgNJjuvH1p99u9tTBvKWUo5XsyQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:458a:: with SMTP id p10mr52821643wrq.184.1594123582099; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 05:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-179-51.eurotel.cz. [37.188.179.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14sm722767wro.81.2020.07.07.05.06.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 05:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:06:19 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Qian Cai Cc: Feng Tang , kernel test robot , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , Iurii Zaikin , andi.kleen@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [mm] 4e2c82a409: ltp.overcommit_memory01.fail Message-ID: <20200707120619.GO5913@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C16A618038E6A X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: On Tue 07-07-20 07:43:48, Qian Cai wrote: >=20 >=20 > > On Jul 7, 2020, at 6:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >=20 > > Would you have any examples? Because I find this highly unlikely. > > OVERCOMMIT_NEVER only works when virtual memory is not largerly > > overcommited wrt to real memory demand. And that tends to be more of > > an exception rather than a rule. "Modern" userspace (whatever that > > means) tends to be really hungry with virtual memory which is only us= ed > > very sparsely. > >=20 > > I would argue that either somebody is running an "OVERCOMMIT_NEVER" > > friendly SW and this is a permanent setting or this is not used at al= l. > > At least this is my experience. > >=20 > > So I strongly suspect that LTP test failure is not something we shoul= d > > really lose sleep over. It would be nice to find a way to flush exist= ing > > batches but I would rather see a real workload that would suffer from > > this imprecision. >=20 > I hear you many times that you really don=E2=80=99t care about those us= e > cases unless you hear exactly people are using in your world. >=20 > For example, when you said LTP oom tests are totally artificial last > time and how less you care about if they are failing, and I could only > enjoy their efficiencies to find many issues like race conditions > and bad error accumulation handling etc that your =E2=80=9Creal world u= se > cases=E2=80=9D are going to take ages or no way to flag them. Yes, they are effective at hitting corner cases and that is fine. I am not dismissing their usefulness. I have tried to explain that many times but let me try again. Seeing a corner case and think about a potential fix is one thing. On the other hand it is not really ideal to treat such a failure a hard regression and consider otherwise useful functionality/improvement to be reverted without a proper cost benefit analysis. Sure having corner cases is not really nice but really, look at this example again. Overcommit setting is a global thing, it is hard to change it during runtime nilly willy. Because that might have really detrimental side effects on all workloads running. So it is quite reasonable to expect that this is either early after the boot or when the system is in quiescent state when almost nothing but very core services are running and likelihood that the mode of operation changes. > There are just too many valid use cases in this wild world. The > difference is that I admit that I don=E2=80=99t know or even aware all = the > use cases, and I don=E2=80=99t believe you do as well. Me neither and I am not claiming that. All I am saying is that a real risk of a regression is reasonably low that I wouldn't lose sleep over that. It is perfectly fine to address this pro-actively if the fix is reasonably maintainable. I was mostly reacting to your pushing for a revert solely based on LTP results. LTP is a very useful tool to raise awareness of potential problems but you shouldn't really follow those results just blindly. > If a patchset broke the existing behaviors that written exactly in > the spec, it is then someone has to prove its innocent. For example, > if nobody is going to rely on something like this now and future, and > then fix the spec and explain exactly nobody should be rely upon. I am all for clarifications in the documentation. --=20 Michal Hocko SUSE Labs