linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: try oom if reclaim is unable to make forward progress
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:22:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210326112254.jy5jkiwtgj3pqkt2@ava.usersys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YF2YTNnyzWNHfrEg@dhcp22.suse.cz>

Hi Michal,

On Fri 2021-03-26 09:16 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The oom killer is never triggered for costly allocation request.

Yes - I agree. Looking at __alloc_pages_may_oom() I can see for a costly
order allocation request the OOM killer is explicitly not used.
If I understand correctly, the patch I proposed was for the following
scenarios:

  1.    The costly order allocation request to fail when
        "some" progress is made (i.e. order-0) and the last
        compaction request was "skipped"

  2.    A non-costly order allocation request that is
        unable to make any progress and failed over the
        maximum reclaim retry count in a row and the last
        known compaction result was skipped to consider
        using the OOM killer for assistance

> Both reclaim and compaction maintain their own retries counters as they
> are targeting a different operation. Although the compaction really
> depends on the reclaim to do some progress.

Yes. Looking at should_compact_retry() if the last known compaction result
was skipped i.e. suggesting there was not enough order-0 pages to support
compaction, so assistance is needed from reclaim
(see __compaction_suitable()).

I noticed that the value of compaction_retries, compact_result and
compact_priority was 0, COMPACT_SKIPPED and 1 i.e. COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_LIGHT,
respectively.

> OK, this sound unexpected as it indicates that the reclaim is able to
> make a forward progress but compaction doesn't want to give up and keeps
> retrying. Are you able to reproduce this or could you find out which
> specific condition keeps compaction retrying? I would expect that it is
> one of the 3 conditions before the max_retries is checked.

Unfortunately, I have been told it is not entirely reproducible.
I suspect it is the following in should_compact_retry() - as I indicated
above the last known value stored in compaction_retries was 0:


        if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
                max_retries /= 4;
        if (*compaction_retries <= max_retries) {
                ret = true;
                goto out;
        }




Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-26 11:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-15 16:58 [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: try oom if reclaim is unable to make forward progress Aaron Tomlin
2021-03-15 19:54 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-15 19:54 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-15 19:54 ` kernel test robot
2021-03-18 16:16 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-19 17:29   ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-03-22 10:47     ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-25 21:01       ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-03-26  8:16         ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-26 11:22           ` Aaron Tomlin [this message]
2021-03-26 15:36             ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-26 17:00               ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-18 14:05               ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 11:10                 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-19 13:06                   ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 14:50                     ` [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 15:22                       ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-19 19:08                         ` Aaron Tomlin

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=20210326112254.jy5jkiwtgj3pqkt2@ava.usersys.com \
    --to=atomlin@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --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).