From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEEF828E1 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p65so75905645wmp.0 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com (mail-wm0-f66.google.com. [74.125.82.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cu9si42846149wjc.53.2016.03.02.04.39.20 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:39:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id p65so9393590wmp.1 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:39:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:39:17 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4 Message-ID: <20160302123917.GF26686@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1450203586-10959-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160203132718.GI6757@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160229203502.GW16930@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160301133846.GF9461@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160302022846.GB22355@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160302022846.GB22355@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Joonsoo Kim Cc: Hugh Dickins , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Tetsuo Handa , Hillf Danton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Wed 02-03-16 11:28:46, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I'd expect a build in 224M > > > RAM plus 2G of swap to take so long, that I'd be very grateful to be > > > OOM killed, even if there is technically enough space. Unless > > > perhaps it's some superfast swap that you have? > > > > the swap partition is a standard qcow image stored on my SSD disk. So > > I guess the IO should be quite fast. This smells like a potential > > contributor because my reclaim seems to be much faster and that should > > lead to a more efficient reclaim (in the scanned/reclaimed sense). > > Hmm... This looks like one of potential culprit. If page is in > writeback, it can't be migrated by compaction with MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT. > In this case, this page works as pinned page and prevent compaction. > It'd be better to check that changing 'migration_mode = MIGRATE_SYNC' at > 'no_progress_loops > XXX' will help in this situation. Would it make sense to use MIGRATE_SYNC for !costly allocations by default? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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