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=-12.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 CB659C433E0 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591EC2063A for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="E/RqiRVJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 591EC2063A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 83FBA6B0003; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 00:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7F1716B0005; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 00:22:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 70AD56B0006; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 00:22:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0075.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.75]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE576B0003 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 00:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EF61EE6 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:22:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77078931132.24.veil80_51003a526f55 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34EF1A4A0 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:22:46 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: veil80_51003a526f55 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6722 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com (mail-qk1-f194.google.com [209.85.222.194]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:22:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id j187so12387959qke.11 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:22:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=2MOx2O4fUUqw8g6tJeVtZgLswZrenVEln7D6xkEdxTA=; b=E/RqiRVJd1PFIofCzdppg6QVamSaDaRZnw3Lnj/LXO4q96eeGFSzRRPokaNSNoarJv QX0hTv5h+x+SNFvtQN5D0TYeXu2indFJlcJm7XhYghA+QSro8eKfdVOPT2e6ngTlacj+ 3wM6hyAIVw04HbadwhkNrSLR+XAnDpib+oARstoZVBcSwyrMEoK4kHPFFdNs/17Mcgaq m/JpfuQCzsQr3eUjUhR6fFdhsGE+tRaQWS35QdgL/YoSUEEB9lpv+/NDdk2xKJgZj4tM L7fX0WQ2Hsw8HsCXGwi5Xf86xjPh2dERFVidt8z/5JB1drhk3Cij5qltSIxK1kvEZKXM 4SfQ== 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:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=2MOx2O4fUUqw8g6tJeVtZgLswZrenVEln7D6xkEdxTA=; b=EOWTMzKd3tbyXwWFQUlo6vO/unfeiIcN7oSwhRaVSIb0NCTv1ABc1j7naHndVAjAVU KPgG8heXtyqT09EAsa295V6uP3TTFlI5l3afORRF+iv8pCq5XXMjIWVHSSVWuyovSpPN VyR9fZ7JLzi3xCtKo+z8yDIcSpkXFFHqG0ImNNadeDESgdYjtyDshFwTL9X6YKV8kEEC K6O1xlnvGxgPwOjLWayMsqkfIJTpKm6aXCYH+86kvasqlQCk7nWpPvrX2Uabk936zjMm na0wxXYEq02kirG2LiNpeHX4pAhnSf1BBDWF82CrrpMTH1iQvYSjupjyUPrRcVDux3Nb 8A8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530VO1r8pe2w+cVtKh0C1rOYXqNLqxXkNYTiZEIaFyKr6hascP/d 5ZRMw6diyA3F9Q6Ae6gjecW9bg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlDJ00IptO5NKX6Mu4C4yd8tp6E8gcH5PyIHGUABb+uAMGtFBuHNqeL2fxNfI3QxInKf6ZEA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:46c6:: with SMTP id t189mr17579258qka.50.1595737365318; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eggly.attlocal.net (172-10-233-147.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [172.10.233.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 71sm4564151qkk.125.2020.07.25.21.22.43 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Hugh Dickins cc: Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , Michal Hocko , Linux-MM , LKML , Andrew Morton , Tim Chen , Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20200723124749.GA7428@redhat.com> <20200724152424.GC17209@redhat.com> <20200725101445.GB3870@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C34EF1A4A0 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 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 Sat, 25 Jul 2020, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2020, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:14 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > Heh. I too thought about this. And just in case, your patch looks correct > > > to me. But I can't really comment this behavioural change. Perhaps it > > > should come in a separate patch? > > > > We could do that. At the same time, I think both parts change how the > > waitqueue works that it might as well just be one "fix page_bit_wait > > waitqueue usage". > > > > But let's wait to see what Hugh's numbers say. > > Oh no, no no: sorry for getting your hopes up there, I won't come up > with any numbers more significant than "0 out of 10" machines crashed. > I know it would be *really* useful if I could come up with performance > comparisons, or steer someone else to do so: but I'm sorry, cannot. > > Currently it's actually 1 out of 10 machines crashed, for the same > driverland issue seen last time, maybe it's a bad machine; and another > 1 out of the 10 machines went AWOL for unknown reasons, but probably > something outside the kernel got confused by the stress. No reason > to suspect your changes at all (but some unanalyzed "failure"s, of > dubious significance, accumulating like last time). > > I'm optimistic: nothing has happened to warn us off your changes. Less optimistic now, I'm afraid. The machine I said had (twice) crashed coincidentally in driverland (some USB completion thing): that machine I set running a comparison kernel without your changes this morning, while the others still running with your changes; and it has now passed the point where it twice crashed before (the most troublesome test), without crashing. Surprising: maybe still just coincidence, but I must look closer at the crashes. The others have now completed, and one other crashed in that troublesome test, but sadly without yielding any crash info. I've just set comparison runs going on them all, to judge whether to take the "failure"s seriously; and I'll look more closely at them. But hungry and tired now: unlikely to have more to say tonight. > > And on Fri, 24 Jul 2020, Linus Torvalds had written: > > So the loads you are running are known to have sensitivity to this > > particular area, and are why you've done your patches to the page wait > > bit code? > > Yes. It's a series of nineteen ~hour-long tests, of which about five > exhibited wake_up_page_bit problems in the past, and one has remained > intermittently troublesome that way. Intermittently: usually it does > get through, so getting through yesterday and today won't even tell > us that your changes fixed it - that we shall learn over time later. > > Hugh