Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1509 bytes --]

On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 10:12 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-03-17 10:54:57, Rik van Riel wrote:

> > In fact, false OOM kills with that kind of workload is
> > how we ended up getting the "too many isolated" logic
> > in the first place.
> Right, but the retry logic was considerably different than what we
> have these days. should_reclaim_retry considers amount of reclaimable
> memory. As I've said earlier if we see a report where the oom hits
> prematurely with many NR_ISOLATED* we know how to fix that.

Would it be enough to simply reset no_progress_loops
in this check inside should_reclaim_retry, if we know
pageout IO is pending?

                        if (!did_some_progress) {
                                unsigned long write_pending;

                                write_pending =
zone_page_state_snapshot(zone,
                                                        NR_ZONE_WRITE_P
ENDING);

                                if (2 * write_pending > reclaimable) {
                                        congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC,
HZ/10);
                                        return true;
                                }
                        }

-- 
All rights reversed

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]