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 EDC6DC433DF for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8F220738 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:56:48 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AE8F220738 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 4C3718D0006; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 473538D0003; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 33AEF8D0006; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0031.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.31]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E0F8D0003 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F4F181AC9B6 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77011430454.17.title47_190e25b26eb5 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892B1180D0181 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: title47_190e25b26eb5 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5338 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by imf36.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id b6so45220774wrs.11 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:56:46 -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=FpuEvCsXRL4/W9jfe5wiH6evdM0ik5cj0/MlbIbZB5Q=; b=QmEllmrMK1KzVOKti+WFZIjSK0vRFO4DVoj7pdex1WNDmMCj4+zx8znJikA6w/EyD5 KoETM+jEhrW/0u9+ygAdoOLjQbqMH2Num0Hg5bZEKmJhENgLRA/dQ5gi6l5Mo5+WcDuj wMfbH3ZtVtc1bHpNjlkzP2VIMhPVghV9wh+A6P7IFPrFR4AFnP1VU4R45gTOfzyhg0eE TqLD3F6ZIMfqBSUKi5tLvB+lq/jl9XqHQtwACqxB13OebTflSMyFCfQgWBVDE6467iq1 WZDqv/rTgBaHThevdD5tf8GCH/M4WJ4BcwiPmp9ukT21aSP5Xal+2ygYFIWlHB3zOcAY m7vw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533pWKOkxijHqa2GeR7CXoAIX5Lp4REOeegQVBnA5jUY3JgPCjMI 8T2YjDTOt9Q0YTAF2GSQI3U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrH8FLw5jYEp0j5ccSsTyr9QNW1w/6kkEF3mbBOl+PJPAzLwu1mmfbxDSVPfvJ6XpNWcQEbQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6846:: with SMTP id o6mr54428442wrw.370.1594130205924; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-179-51.eurotel.cz. [37.188.179.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u15sm1211094wrm.64.2020.07.07.06.56.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:56:43 +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: <20200707135643.GV5913@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200707120619.GO5913@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200707130436.GA992@lca.pw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200707130436.GA992@lca.pw> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 892B1180D0181 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 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 09:04:36, Qian Cai wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:06:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 07-07-20 07:43:48, Qian Cai wrote: > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > On Jul 7, 2020, at 6:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrot= e: > > > >=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 tha= t > > > > means) tends to be really hungry with virtual memory which is onl= y used > > > > very sparsely. > > > >=20 > > > > I would argue that either somebody is running an "OVERCOMMIT_NEVE= R" > > > > friendly SW and this is a permanent setting or this is not used a= t all. > > > > At least this is my experience. > > > >=20 > > > > So I strongly suspect that LTP test failure is not something we s= hould > > > > really lose sleep over. It would be nice to find a way to flush e= xisting > > > > 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 thos= e use > > > cases unless you hear exactly people are using in your world. > > >=20 > > > For example, when you said LTP oom tests are totally artificial las= t > > > time and how less you care about if they are failing, and I could o= nly > > > enjoy their efficiencies to find many issues like race conditions > > > and bad error accumulation handling etc that your =E2=80=9Creal wor= ld use > > > cases=E2=80=9D are going to take ages or no way to flag them. > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > Well, terms like "corner cases" and "hard regression" are rather > subjective. Existing real life examples really makes them less subjective though. [...] > > LTP is a very useful tool to raise awareness of potential problems bu= t > > you shouldn't really follow those results just blindly. >=20 > You must think I am a newbie tester to give me this piece of advice > then. Not by even close. I can clearly see your involvement in testing and how many good bug reports that results in. --=20 Michal Hocko SUSE Labs