From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA90F6B003D for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:56:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o082u7e0022447 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:07 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBD645DE53 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7788F45DE50 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450EDE08001 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8F51DB8047 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:05 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: Commit f50de2d38 seems to be breaking my oom killer In-Reply-To: <20100108105841.b9a030c4.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> References: <20100107135831.GA29564@csn.ul.ie> <20100108105841.b9a030c4.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> Message-Id: <20100108115531.C132.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:56:05 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , Will Newton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: > Hi, Mel > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:58:31 +0000 > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > vmscan: kswapd should notice that all zones are not ok if they are unreclaimble > > > > In the event all zones are unreclaimble, it is possible for kswapd to > > never go to sleep because "all zones are ok even though watermarks are > > not reached". It gets into a situation where cond_reched() is not > > called. > > > > This patch notes that if all zones are unreclaimable then the zones are > > not ok and cond_resched() should be called. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 2ad8603..d3c0848 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -2022,8 +2022,10 @@ loop_again: > > break; > > } > > } > > - if (i < 0) > > + if (i < 0) { > > + all_zones_ok = 0; > > goto out; > > + } > > > > for (i = 0; i <= end_zone; i++) { > > struct zone *zone = pgdat->node_zones + i; > > > > -- > > Nice catch! > Don't we care following as although it is rare case? > > --- > for (i = 0; i <= end_zone; i++) { > struct zone *zone = pgdat->node_zones + i; > int nr_slab; > int nid, zid; > > if (!populated_zone(zone)) > continue; > > if (zone_is_all_unreclaimable(zone) && > priority != DEF_PRIORITY) > continue; <==== here > > --- > > And while I review all_zones_ok'usage in balance_pgdat, > I feel it's not consistent and rather confused. > How about this? Can you please read my patch? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org