From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:58:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161216155808.12809-1-mhocko@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161216073941.GA26976@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri 16-12-16 08:39:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> That being said, the OOM killer invocation is clearly pointless and
> pre-mature. We normally do not invoke it normally for GFP_NOFS requests
> exactly for these reasons. But this is GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL which
> behaves differently. I am about to change that but my last attempt [1]
> has to be rethought.
>
> Now another thing is that the __GFP_NOFAIL which has this nasty side
> effect has been introduced by me d1b5c5671d01 ("btrfs: Prevent from
> early transaction abort") in 4.3 so I am quite surprised that this has
> shown up only in 4.8. Anyway there might be some other changes in the
> btrfs which could make it more subtle.
>
> I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
> tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could
> check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen
> allocation stalls from this path quite recently
Could you try to run with the two following patches?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Nils Holland <nholland@tisys.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OOM: Better, but still there on
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:58:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161216155808.12809-1-mhocko@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161216073941.GA26976@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri 16-12-16 08:39:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> That being said, the OOM killer invocation is clearly pointless and
> pre-mature. We normally do not invoke it normally for GFP_NOFS requests
> exactly for these reasons. But this is GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL which
> behaves differently. I am about to change that but my last attempt [1]
> has to be rethought.
>
> Now another thing is that the __GFP_NOFAIL which has this nasty side
> effect has been introduced by me d1b5c5671d01 ("btrfs: Prevent from
> early transaction abort") in 4.3 so I am quite surprised that this has
> shown up only in 4.8. Anyway there might be some other changes in the
> btrfs which could make it more subtle.
>
> I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
> tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could
> check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen
> allocation stalls from this path quite recently
Could you try to run with the two following patches?
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-16 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 123+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-15 22:57 OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Nils Holland
2016-12-16 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 7:39 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-12-16 15:58 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator slowpath Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 15:58 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 22:12 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-17 11:17 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-18 16:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 18:47 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Nils Holland
2016-12-16 18:47 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 0:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 0:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-17 12:59 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 12:59 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 14:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-17 14:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-17 17:11 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 17:11 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 21:06 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-17 21:06 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-18 5:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-18 5:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-19 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-19 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-20 2:08 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-20 2:08 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-21 7:36 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 7:36 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-21 11:00 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-21 11:16 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 11:16 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-21 14:04 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-21 14:04 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-22 10:10 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:10 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 10:35 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:35 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 10:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-22 10:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-12-22 19:17 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 19:17 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-22 21:46 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-22 21:46 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 10:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 10:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 12:18 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 12:18 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 14:47 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 14:47 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-23 22:26 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-23 22:26 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-26 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 18:57 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-26 18:57 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-27 8:08 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 8:08 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 11:23 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-27 11:23 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-27 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 15:55 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 15:55 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 16:28 ` [PATCH] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count kbuild test robot
2016-12-28 8:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-28 8:51 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-27 19:33 ` [RFC PATCH] mm, memcg: fix (Re: OOM: Better, but still there on) Nils Holland
2016-12-27 19:33 ` Nils Holland
2016-12-28 8:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-28 8:57 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 1:20 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 1:20 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 2:05 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-30 2:05 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-30 10:40 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 10:40 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 0:31 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 0:31 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 0:48 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 0:48 ` Minchan Kim
2016-12-29 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-29 8:52 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-30 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-30 11:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 11:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-30 12:43 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-30 12:43 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-25 22:25 ` [lkp-developer] [mm, memcg] d18e2b2aca: WARNING:at_mm/memcontrol.c:#mem_cgroup_update_lru_size kernel test robot
2016-12-25 22:25 ` kernel test robot
2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:26 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-26 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-18 0:28 ` OOM: Better, but still there on Xin Zhou
2016-12-16 18:15 ` OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9 Chris Mason
2016-12-16 18:15 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-16 22:14 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 22:14 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 22:47 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-16 22:47 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-16 23:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 23:31 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-16 19:50 ` Chris Mason
2016-12-16 19:50 ` Chris Mason
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=20161216155808.12809-1-mhocko@kernel.org \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nholland@tisys.org \
/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.