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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 224ACC433DF for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE7520776 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 09:49:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590745764; bh=0C6iCaTul0/kwSOJgixdIrP2VzJRsznycAi9fUqICJE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=U/0ys3p46HSOK0xBv2P9rgfhEMyzJgG9ObKncV/P/llsepzxpObb+Mg062FXN64gA we6mPXZea0uCDUXDAtLIbGN4PqLyiBXawihxNOhXgphBs5xFJgCXBsJCioJlXPX5xj DffBO0NQj7mbiQwFIasf0kWYWBksidC3NRtsCP44= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726476AbgE2JtX (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 05:49:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:38563 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725681AbgE2JtW (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 05:49:22 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id e1so2804030wrt.5; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:49:20 -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:in-reply-to; bh=4SLMrx0MWc8j4vJRn7Kgzb3DUyQWlx2ZLRbxHmKbcbE=; b=Ffo8IQE++6k+frzciH7ED5GMNv607o7tgzOMgs1l+TpeHRJXG3eXOUNr7/LwzY4RkD PgADuitQPfprFo2OdNyXJKZpRT0a+5rWOowb5oFllzkM757hs7ia+jBnhaOgxMG/KBic 3IjxMv+NTvlerppX3wn2Tb8gHduqqxxgkxGmneN97HRbv36JwL4iHDni6NgAfMcM3E+0 dgEeUqtNbuEvWOyuPIZijNvyIAfUnbeGUXBDdq9ayEpy9QgTzb543MXJe27gGYAbb73B 3ULgH6nrR4qTuM56Sa4MCsBHMetJ5uGsloJgkk42ZrJhoWvL/mapbyzSOdJ/evRKTne2 WAWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Olg01nDQb4vFu/oik4+0BT/DJXCM6MLCo6rsp16qubFQ0VlAh OX3qc5dyHJtdbLvO8dUDZ68= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynJWn/appsj5zHjc6kja0kVDlwDRUmuKllOuUorUMxNbkdmaKubkMD/idzdl3klO6z62m4Rg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f58b:: with SMTP id f11mr7947420wro.155.1590745760055; Fri, 29 May 2020 02:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-150-59.eurotel.cz. [37.188.150.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5sm9907553wmd.19.2020.05.29.02.49.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 May 2020 02:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 11:49:10 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Chris Down Cc: Yafang Shao , Naresh Kamboju , Anders Roxell , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , linux-ext4 , linux-block , Andrew Morton , open list , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , Chao Yu , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , Chao Yu , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Cgroups Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Message-ID: <20200529094910.GH4406@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote: > Yafang Shao writes: > > Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the > > same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is > > these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't > > related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why > > we always make the same mistake ? > > One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of > > memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same > > lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with > > the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should > > be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a > > protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the > > reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection > > member in scan_control before. > > I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- > the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation > with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see > the data :-) Agreed. Even if e{low,min} might still have some rough edges I am completely puzzled how we could end up oom if none of the protection path triggers which the additional debugging should confirm. Maybe my debugging patch is incomplete or used incorrectly (maybe it would be esier to use printk rather than trace_printk?). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs