From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim_retry().
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:04:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180905140451.GG14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81cc1f29-e42e-7813-dc70-5d6d9e999dd1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On Wed 05-09-18 22:53:33, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/09/05 22:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Changelog said
> >
> > "Although this is possible in principle let's wait for it to actually
> > happen in real life before we make the locking more complex again."
> >
> > So what is the real life workload that hits it? The log you have pasted
> > below doesn't tell much.
>
> Nothing special. I just ran a multi-threaded memory eater on a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel.
I strongly suspec that your test doesn't really represent or simulate
any real and useful workload. Sure it triggers a rare race and we kill
another oom victim. Does this warrant to make the code more complex?
Well, I am not convinced, as I've said countless times.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-05 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-26 11:06 Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-26 11:39 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-27 15:47 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-30 9:32 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-30 14:34 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-30 14:46 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-30 14:54 ` Tejun Heo
2018-07-30 15:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-30 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2018-07-30 18:51 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-30 19:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-30 21:01 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-31 5:09 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-31 10:47 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-31 11:15 ` Michal Hocko
2018-07-31 11:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-31 11:55 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-02 22:05 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-03 6:16 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-21 21:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-22 7:32 ` Michal Hocko
2018-08-23 20:06 ` David Rientjes
2018-08-23 21:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-08-23 22:45 ` David Rientjes
2018-08-24 0:31 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-05 13:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-05 13:40 ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-05 13:53 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-05 14:04 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2018-09-06 1:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-06 5:57 ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-06 6:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-06 7:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-07-30 19:14 ` Tejun Heo
2018-08-27 13:51 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=20180905140451.GG14951@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@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