From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f72.google.com (mail-wm0-f72.google.com [74.125.82.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C98E6B0038 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m203so45407967wma.2 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com. [74.125.82.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sd16si60092847wjb.290.2016.11.29.08.25.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id a20so25249813wme.2 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:25:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:25:15 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: 4.8.8 kernel trigger OOM killer repeatedly when I have lots of RAM that should be free Message-ID: <20161129162515.GD9796@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161121154336.GD19750@merlins.org> <0d4939f3-869d-6fb8-0914-5f74172f8519@suse.cz> <20161121215639.GF13371@merlins.org> <20161122160629.uzt2u6m75ash4ved@merlins.org> <48061a22-0203-de54-5a44-89773bff1e63@suse.cz> <20161122163801.GA2919@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161122163801.GA2919@kroah.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stable tree Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Marc MERLIN , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds , LKML , Joonsoo Kim , Tejun Heo On Tue 22-11-16 17:38:01, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:14:02PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 11/22/2016 05:06 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:56:39PM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > > >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:50:20PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >>>> 4.9rc5 however seems to be doing better, and is still running after 18 > > >>>> hours. However, I got a few page allocation failures as per below, but the > > >>>> system seems to recover. > > >>>> Vlastimil, do you want me to continue the copy on 4.9 (may take 3-5 days) > > >>>> or is that good enough, and i should go back to 4.8.8 with that patch applied? > > >>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=147423605024993 > > >>> > > >>> Hi, I think it's enough for 4.9 for now and I would appreciate trying > > >>> 4.8 with that patch, yeah. > > >> > > >> So the good news is that it's been running for almost 5H and so far so good. > > > > > > And the better news is that the copy is still going strong, 4.4TB and > > > going. So 4.8.8 is fixed with that one single patch as far as I'm > > > concerned. > > > > > > So thanks for that, looks good to me to merge. > > > > Thanks a lot for the testing. So what do we do now about 4.8? (4.7 is > > already EOL AFAICS). > > > > - send the patch [1] as 4.8-only stable. Greg won't like that, I expect. > > - alternatively a simpler (againm 4.8-only) patch that just outright > > prevents OOM for 0 < order < costly, as Michal already suggested. > > - backport 10+ compaction patches to 4.8 stable > > - something else? > > Just wait for 4.8-stable to go end-of-life in a few weeks after 4.9 is > released? :) OK, so can we push this through to 4.8 before EOL and make sure there won't be any additional pre-mature high order OOM reports? The patch should be simple enough and safe for the stable tree. There is no upstream commit because 4.9 is fixed in a different way which would be way too intrusive for the stable backport. ---