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: Tue, 18 May 2021 15:05:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210518140554.dwan66i4ttmzw4hj@ava.usersys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YF3/YZPd+iz/xGu6@dhcp22.suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]
Michal,
On Fri 2021-03-26 16:36 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> OK, I kinda expected this would be not easily reproducible.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for feedback on this.
> We should be focusing on the compaction retry logic and see whether we
> can have some "run away" scenarios there. Seeing so many retries without
> compaction bailing out sounds like a bug in that retry logic.
I suspect so.
This is indeed a case of excessive reclaim/compaction retries (i.e. the
last known value stored in the no_progress_loops variable was 31,611,688).
What might be particularly unique about this situation is that a fatal
signal was found pending. In this context, if I understand correctly, it
does not make sense to retry compaction when the last known compact result
was skipped and a fatal signal is pending.
Looking at try_to_compact_pages(), indeed COMPACT_SKIPPED can be returned;
albeit, not every zone, on the zone list, would be considered in the case
a fatal signal is found to be pending. Yet, in should_compact_retry(),
given the last known compaction result, each zone, on the zone list, can be
considered/or checked (see compaction_zonelist_suitable()). If a zone e.g.
was found to succeed then reclaim/compaction would be tried again
(notwithstanding the above).
--
Aaron Tomlin
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 14:06 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
2021-03-26 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
2021-03-26 17:00 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-18 14:05 ` Aaron Tomlin [this message]
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=20210518140554.dwan66i4ttmzw4hj@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).