From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
greg@suse.cz, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:16:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160822101614.GA314@x4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160822093249.GA14916@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM
> killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of
> them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because
> of a high fragmentation and compaction failing to make any forward
> progress. While investigating this we have found out that the compaction
> just gives up too early. Vlastimil has been working on compaction
> improvement for quite some time and his series [6] is already sitting
> in mmotm tree. This already helps a lot because it drops some heuristics
> which are more aimed at lower latencies for high orders rather than
> reliability. Joonsoo has then identified further problem with too many
> blocks being marked as unmovable [7] and Vlastimil has prepared a patch
> on top of his series [8] which is also in the mmotm tree now.
>
> That being said, the regression is real and should be fixed for 4.7
> stable users. [6][8] was reported to help and ooms are no longer
> reproducible. I know we are quite late (rc3) in 4.8 but I would vote
> for mergeing those patches and have them in 4.8. For 4.7 I would go
> with a partial revert of the detection rework for high order requests
> (see patch below). This patch is really trivial. If those compaction
> improvements are just too large for 4.8 then we can use the same patch
> as for 4.7 stable for now and revert it in 4.9 after compaction changes
> are merged.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4
For the report [1] above:
markus@x4 linux % cat .config | grep CONFIG_COMPACTION
# CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
--
Markus
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
greg@suse.cz, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>,
Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:16:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160822101614.GA314@x4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160822093249.GA14916@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM
> killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of
> them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because
> of a high fragmentation and compaction failing to make any forward
> progress. While investigating this we have found out that the compaction
> just gives up too early. Vlastimil has been working on compaction
> improvement for quite some time and his series [6] is already sitting
> in mmotm tree. This already helps a lot because it drops some heuristics
> which are more aimed at lower latencies for high orders rather than
> reliability. Joonsoo has then identified further problem with too many
> blocks being marked as unmovable [7] and Vlastimil has prepared a patch
> on top of his series [8] which is also in the mmotm tree now.
>
> That being said, the regression is real and should be fixed for 4.7
> stable users. [6][8] was reported to help and ooms are no longer
> reproducible. I know we are quite late (rc3) in 4.8 but I would vote
> for mergeing those patches and have them in 4.8. For 4.7 I would go
> with a partial revert of the detection rework for high order requests
> (see patch below). This patch is really trivial. If those compaction
> improvements are just too large for 4.8 then we can use the same patch
> as for 4.7 stable for now and revert it in 4.9 after compaction changes
> are merged.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4
For the report [1] above:
markus@x4 linux % cat .config | grep CONFIG_COMPACTION
# CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
--
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-22 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-22 9:32 OOM detection regressions since 4.7 Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 9:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 10:05 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 10:05 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 10:54 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 10:54 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 13:31 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 13:31 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 14:02 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 14:02 ` Greg KH
2016-08-22 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2016-08-22 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2016-08-23 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-25 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-25 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-25 7:17 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 14:52 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 14:54 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 15:07 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-29 15:07 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-29 15:59 ` Olaf Hering
2016-08-29 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-29 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-29 17:52 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-29 17:52 ` Jeff Layton
2016-08-28 5:50 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-08-28 5:50 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-08-25 20:30 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-25 20:30 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-26 6:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-26 6:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-26 20:17 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-26 20:17 ` Ralf-Peter Rohbeck
2016-08-22 10:16 ` Markus Trippelsdorf [this message]
2016-08-22 10:16 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 10:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 10:56 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 11:01 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 11:01 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 11:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 11:13 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-22 11:20 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-22 11:20 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-23 4:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-23 4:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-23 7:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 7:33 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 7:40 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-23 7:40 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2016-08-23 7:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 7:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-23 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-23 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-24 6:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 6:32 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 5:01 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-24 5:01 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-24 7:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 7:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-24 7:29 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-24 7:29 ` Joonsoo Kim
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=20160822101614.GA314@x4 \
--to=markus@trippelsdorf.de \
--cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
--cc=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=greg@suse.cz \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.