Re: fallout of 16K stacks

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>>
>> As in ENOMEM or does something worse happen?
>
> EAGAIN, then the workload stops. For an overnight stress
> test that's pretty catastrophic. It may have killed some stuff
> with the OOM killer too.

I don't think it's OOM.

We have long had the rule that order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (which
is 3) allocations imply __GFP_RETRY unless you explicitly ask it not
to.

And THREAD_SIZE_ORDER is still smaller than that.

Sure, if the system makes no progress at all, it will still oom for
allocations like that, but that's *not* going to happen for something
like a 32GB machine afaik.

And if it was the actual dup_task_struct() that failed (due to
alloc_thread_info_node() now failing), it should have returned ENOMEM
anyway.

So EAGAIN is due to something else.

The only cases for fork() returning EAGAIN I can find are the
RLIMIT_NPROC and max_threads checks.

And the thing is, the default value for RLIMIT_NPROC is actually
initialized based on THREAD_SIZE (which doubled), so maybe it's really
just that rlimit check that now triggers.

Hmm?

          Linus

--
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>