linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: avagin@gmail.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()
Date: Wed,  9 Mar 2011 15:17:01 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110309145457.0400.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D767D43.5020802@gmail.com>

> On 03/08/2011 06:06 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >>>> Hmm.. Although it solves the problem, I think it's not a good idea that
> >>>> depends on false alram and give up the retry.
> >>>
> >>> Any alternative proposals?  We should get the livelock fixed if possible..
> >>
> >> I agree with Minchan and can't think this is a real fix....
> >> Andrey, I'm now trying your fix and it seems your fix for oom-killer,
> >> 'skip-zombie-process' works enough good for my environ.
> >>
> >> What is your enviroment ? number of cpus ? architecture ? size of memory ?
> >
> > me too. 'skip-zombie-process V1' work fine. and I didn't seen this patch
> > improve oom situation.
> >
> > And, The test program is purely fork bomb. Our oom-killer is not silver
> > bullet for fork bomb from very long time ago. That said, oom-killer send
> > SIGKILL and start to kill the victim process. But, it doesn't prevent
> > to be created new memory hogging tasks. Therefore we have no gurantee
> > to win process exiting and creating race.
> 
> I think a live-lock is a bug, even if it's provoked by fork bomds.
> 
> And now I want say some words about zone->all_unreclaimable. I think 
> this flag is "conservative". It is set when situation is bad and it's 
> unset when situation get better. If we have a small number of 
> reclaimable  pages, the situation is still bad. What do you mean, when 
> say that kernel is alive? If we have one reclaimable page, is the kernel 
> alive? Yes, it can work, it will generate many page faults and do 
> something, but anyone say that it is more dead than alive.
> 
> Try to look at it from my point of view. The patch will be correct and 
> the kernel will be more alive.
> 
> Excuse me, If I'm mistaken...

Hi, 

Hmmm...
If I could observed your patch, I did support your opinion. but I didn't. so, now I'm 
curious why we got the different conclusion. tommorow, I'll try to construct a test 
environment to reproduce your system.

Unfortunatelly, zone->all_unreclamable is unreliable value while hibernation processing.
Then I doubt current your patch is enough acceptable. but I'm not against to make alternative
if we can observe the same phenomenon.

At minimum, I also dislike kernel hang up issue.

Thanks.

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-09  6:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-05 11:44 Andrey Vagin
2011-03-05 15:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 15:34   ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 15:53     ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 16:41       ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 17:07         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-07 21:58           ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-07 23:45             ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-09  5:37               ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09  5:43                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-10  6:58                 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-10 23:58                   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-11  0:18                     ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-11  6:08                       ` avagin
2011-03-14  1:03                         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-08  0:44             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08  3:06               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08 19:02                 ` avagin
2011-03-09  5:52                   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09  6:17                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2011-03-10 14:08                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08  8:12               ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-09  6:06                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-04  1:38     ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09  6:54       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-09  8:47         ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09  9:19           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:11             ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:14               ` [PATCH 1/4] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:29                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:14                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:15               ` [PATCH 2/4] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:31                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:15                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-11 23:33                 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  0:52                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  1:30                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  1:53                     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  2:23                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  3:39                         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  4:17                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 14:38                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-13 10:18                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:15               ` [PATCH 3/4] oom: oom-killer don't use permillage of system-ram internally KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:40                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:30                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:16               ` [PATCH 4/4] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:41                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-10 23:22               ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) David Rientjes
2011-05-11  2:30               ` CAI Qian
2011-05-11 20:34                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-12  0:13                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 19:38                     ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13  4:16                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-13 11:04                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-16 20:42                           ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13  6:53                   ` CAI Qian
2011-05-16 20:46                     ` David Rientjes

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=20110309145457.0400.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avagin@gmail.com \
    --cc=avagin@openvz.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    /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