From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED829C433E0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB5C2075F for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="lkBaXTV2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AEB5C2075F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chrisdown.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 33C8B8001A; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2ECF680010; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1DBBF8001A; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.38]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079A580010 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 21:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBEB127B for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76868092854.17.drop57_3b45e280ed84d Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E992180D0180 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: drop57_3b45e280ed84d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5258 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 01:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id r15so1395248wmh.5 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=lkBaXTV2ZUB6ZO5yX3Ng0K/CASCbc9oNlaDIc8KLZ8e4v2cb+z5+AxOSC0HUqdLw42 pPHQXKJiXMf7fSmverIul8xSND7c0ygaABLVaG0hqIXTL8OJ4e0fS8l8+kZ0LHaXgNsT f3Y+1qQWXh34SIawtNNfPuqOwbkRTPMzu6he4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=GN9DgkPdwejhyEVH1kmP5gS0KBOAcxSeuTuQOx2XI9o=; b=Yo+NB97c7pdVntMe8xxeyIFLbIdKodwsmNm3369C/szWd29TjHcZru1O60ZxQbnd+A zAb2R1ZD48/TLkLm54AIeb1sdzmsNqY5yzjN9PJDo908XTe1XXaeYv9+02s6XdBQTGyr PB+HnG/5SZ3NoVgCbcLZzhHyF83bMyiurxBWxe9BCWb8f4w3TJRZmJqUnIOxoLXGLmGs 1jgy8ayrwuk3ZtUwS63og54gRJQ64NPbLmy0iqqTUDc3BR9ayismSWGkNbf30K+Nx4ZC H9Ro+qiNThj/ZVvFS6aW+uFXZlVtpyH8gKiunQLl5S78Ev3RtBklsg0fbSuVmUArw5F2 8Llg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tgSMYl20trpNLV5LpoBztgdYA4rFSUqWYHLH5cWSqqKQDQ+ZV VQDHMxP8Bni0jLMEZFSjblrwgw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1kaceNrBzDvGLjsUvi/4uBliHtVGdHPjh2oD497Ebo468RL7eFjpFK3j2MrZfogR+PRA4Bg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c096:: with SMTP id r22mr6033969wmh.92.1590717405871; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:8432:8a00:56e1:adff:fe3f:49ed]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q11sm1858042wrv.67.2020.05.28.18.56.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Yafang Shao Cc: Naresh Kamboju , Michal Hocko , Anders Roxell , "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" , linux-ext4 , linux-block , Andrew Morton , open list , Linux-Next Mailing List , linux-mm , Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Dilger , Jaegeuk Kim , Theodore Ts'o , Chao Yu , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , Chao Yu , lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Cgroups Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name> References: <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.2 (2020-05-25) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9E992180D0180 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Yafang Shao writes: >Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the >same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is >these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't >related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why >we always make the same mistake ? >One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of >memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same >lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with >the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should >be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a >protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the >reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection >member in scan_control before. I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-)