linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:38 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160504083238.GA11859@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5729AEFB.9060101@suse.cz>

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with
> >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh
> >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I
> >think that these show the problem of this patchset. Previous kernel
> >doesn't need to ensure to trigger compaction and just works fine in
> >any case.
> 
> IIRC previous kernel somehow subtly never OOM'd for !costly orders.

IIRC, it would not OOM in thrashing case. But, it could OOM in other
cases.

> So anything that introduces the possibility of OOM may look like
> regression for some corner case workloads. But I don't think that
> it's OK to not OOM for e.g. kernel stack allocations?

Sorry. Double negation makes me hard to understand since I'm not
native. So, you think that it's OK to OOM for kernel stack allocation?
I think so, too. But, I want not to OOM prematurely.

> >Your series make compaction necessary for all. OOM handling
> >is essential part in MM but compaction isn't. OOM handling should not
> >depend on compaction. I tested my own benchmark without
> >CONFIG_COMPACTION and found that premature OOM happens.
> >
> >I hope that you try to test something without CONFIG_COMPACTION.
> 
> Hmm a valid point, !CONFIG_COMPACTION should be considered. But
> reclaim cannot guarantee forming an order>0 page. But neither does
> OOM. So would you suggest we keep reclaiming without OOM as before,
> to prevent these regressions? Or where to draw the line here?

I suggested that memorizing number of reclaimable pages when entering
allocation slowpath and try to reclaim at least that amount. Thrashing
is effectively prevented in this algorithm and we don't trigger OOM
prematurely.

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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-04  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-20 19:47 Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 01/14] vmscan: consider classzone_idx in compaction_ready Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  3:32   ` Hillf Danton
2016-05-04 13:56   ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 02/14] mm, compaction: change COMPACT_ constants into enum Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 03/14] mm, compaction: cover all compaction mode in compact_zone Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 04/14] mm, compaction: distinguish COMPACT_DEFERRED from COMPACT_SKIPPED Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  7:08   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 05/14] mm, compaction: distinguish between full and partial COMPACT_COMPLETE Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:39   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 06/14] mm, compaction: Update compaction_result ordering Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:45   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 07/14] mm, compaction: Simplify __alloc_pages_direct_compact feedback interface Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:50   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 08/14] mm, compaction: Abstract compaction feedback to helpers Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  6:57   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:47   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 09/14] mm: use compaction feedback for thp backoff conditions Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  7:05   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:53   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-28 12:35     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-29  9:16       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-29  9:28         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 10/14] mm, oom: rework oom detection Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 11/14] mm: throttle on IO only when there are too many dirty and writeback pages Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 12/14] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:03   ` Hillf Danton
2016-05-04  6:01   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  6:31     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  8:56       ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:57         ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:19           ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  8:53     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:39       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:20         ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 13/14] mm: consider compaction feedback also for costly allocation Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:13   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-20 19:47 ` [PATCH 14/14] mm, oom, compaction: prevent from should_compact_retry looping for ever for costly orders Michal Hocko
2016-04-21  8:24   ` Hillf Danton
2016-04-28  8:59   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-04-28 12:39     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  6:27   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  9:04     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 15:14       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 19:22         ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  5:45 ` [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6 Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04  8:12   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-04  8:32     ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2016-05-04  8:50     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04  8:47   ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-04 14:32     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-04 18:16       ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10  6:41         ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-10  7:09           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-05-10  8:00             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-10  9:44               ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10  9:43           ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-12  2:23             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-12  5:19               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-05-12 10:59               ` Michal Hocko

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=20160504083238.GA11859@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE \
    --to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --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