From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f71.google.com (mail-wm0-f71.google.com [74.125.82.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8D76B025E for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f126so22975356wma.3 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com (outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com. [46.22.139.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gm9si1028652wjb.47.2016.06.23.05.33.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail01.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.10]) by outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4B61C1D74 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:49 +0100 (IST) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:47 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v7 Message-ID: <20160623123347.GV1868@techsingularity.net> References: <1466518566-30034-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20160623102648.GP1868@techsingularity.net> <20160623112714.GF30077@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160623112714.GF30077@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , LKML On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:27:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 23-06-16 11:26:48, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > The bulk of the updates are in response to review from Vlastimil Babka > > > and received a lot more testing than v6. > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Please drop these patches again from mmotm. > > > > There has been a number of odd conflicts resulting in at least one major > > bug where a node-counter is used on a zone that will result in random > > behaviour. Some of the additional feedback is non-trivial and all of it > > will need to be resolved against the OOM detection rework and the huge > > tmpfs implementation. > > FWIW I haven't spotted any obvious misbehaving wrt. the OOM detection > rework. You have kept the per-zone counters which are used for the retry > logic so I think we should be safe. I am still reading through the > series though. > The main snag is NR_FILE_DIRTY and NR_WRITEBACK in should_reclaim_retry. It currently is a random number generator if it reads a zone stat instead of the node one. In some configurations, it even reads values after the stats array. -- Mel Gorman 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