From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f197.google.com (mail-pg1-f197.google.com [209.85.215.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61D76B0003 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f197.google.com with SMTP id s141-v6so2016919pgs.23 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org. [198.145.29.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 133-v6si870305pfb.41.2018.11.02.09.01.33 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:01:22 -0400 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: Will the recent memory leak fixes be backported to longterm kernels? Message-ID: <20181102160122.GH194472@sasha-vm> References: <20181102005816.GA10297@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dexuan Cui Cc: Roman Gushchin , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kernel Team , Shakeel Butt , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Rik van Riel , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Matthew Wilcox , "Stable@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:45:42AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: >> From: Roman Gushchin >> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 17:58 >> >> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:16:02AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: >> Hello, Dexuan! >> >> A couple of issues has been revealed recently, here are fixes >> (hashes are from the next tree): >> >> 5f4b04528b5f mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages >> 5a03b371ad6a mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge() >> properly >> >> These two patches should be added to the serie. > >Thanks for the new info! > >> Re stable backporting, I'd really wait for some time. Memory reclaim is a >> quite complex and fragile area, so even if patches are correct by themselves, >> they can easily cause a regression by revealing some other issues (as it was >> with the inode reclaim case). > >I totally agree. I'm now just wondering if there is any temporary workaround, >even if that means we have to run the kernel with some features disabled or >with a suboptimal performance? I'm not sure what workload you're seeing it on, but if you could merge these 7 patches and see that it solves the problem you're seeing and doesn't cause any regressions it'll be a useful test for the rest of us. -- Thanks, Sasha