All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ralf-Peter Rohbeck <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:51:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201609152051.25268.a.miskiewicz@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz>

On Tuesday 06 of September 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to
> provide a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an
> almost complete solution that instead improved compaction reliability.
> 
> This series completes the mmotm solution and reintroduces the compaction
> feedback into OOM decisions. The first two patches restore the state of
> mmotm before the temporary solution was merged, the last patch should be
> the missing piece for reliability. The third patch restricts the hardened
> compaction to non-costly orders, since costly orders don't result in OOMs
> in the first place.
> 
> Some preliminary testing suggested that this approach should work, but I
> would like to ask all who experienced the regression to please retest
> this. You will need to apply this series on top of tag
> mmotm-2016-08-31-16-06 from the mmotm git tree [2]. Thanks in advance!

My "rm -rf copyX; cp -al org copyX" test x10 in parallel worked without any 
OOM.


-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )

--
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: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Ralf-Peter Rohbeck" <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com>,
	Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:51:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201609152051.25268.a.miskiewicz@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160906135258.18335-1-vbabka@suse.cz>

On Tuesday 06 of September 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to
> provide a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an
> almost complete solution that instead improved compaction reliability.
> 
> This series completes the mmotm solution and reintroduces the compaction
> feedback into OOM decisions. The first two patches restore the state of
> mmotm before the temporary solution was merged, the last patch should be
> the missing piece for reliability. The third patch restricts the hardened
> compaction to non-costly orders, since costly orders don't result in OOMs
> in the first place.
> 
> Some preliminary testing suggested that this approach should work, but I
> would like to ask all who experienced the regression to please retest
> this. You will need to apply this series on top of tag
> mmotm-2016-08-31-16-06 from the mmotm git tree [2]. Thanks in advance!

My "rm -rf copyX; cp -al org copyX" test x10 in parallel worked without any 
OOM.


-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-09-15 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-06 13:52 [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "mm, oom: prevent premature OOM killer invocation for high order request" Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:04   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:04     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:13   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:13     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 12:51     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 12:51       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:08       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:08         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:52           ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 14:59           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 14:59             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06           ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:06             ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  4:04             ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  4:04               ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  6:55               ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  6:55                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:23                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:23                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:47                   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 10:47                     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:06                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:06                       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, compaction: restrict full priority to non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-21 17:15   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:15     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-06 13:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction: make full priority ignore pageblock suitability Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-06 13:52   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-15 18:51 ` Arkadiusz Miskiewicz [this message]
2016-09-15 18:51   ` [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
2016-09-21 17:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-21 17:18   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 15:18   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-22 15:18     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23  8:26     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:26       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 10:55       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 10:55         ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-23 12:09         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 12:09           ` 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=201609152051.25268.a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
    --to=a.miskiewicz@gmail.com \
    --cc=Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@quantum.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arekm@maven.pl \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=olaf@aepfle.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --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.