linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix oom work when memory is under pressure
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:13:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57D8F8AE.1090404@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160913132854.GB6592@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 2016/9/13 21:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-09-16 21:13:21, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2016/9/13 1:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> If you want to solve this problem properly then you would have to give
>>> tasks which are looping in the page allocator access to some portion of
>>> memory reserves. This is quite tricky to do right, though.
>> To use some portion of memory reserves is almost no effect in a so
>> starvation scenario.  I think the hungtask still will occur. it can
>> not solve the problem primarily.
> Granting an access to memory reserves is of course no full solution but
> it raises chances for a forward progress. Other solutions would have to
> guarantee that the memory reclaimed on behalf of the requester will be
> given to the requester. Not an easy task
>
>>> Retry counters with the fail path have been proposed in the past and not
>>> accepted.
>> The above patch have been tested by runing the trinity.  The question
>> is fixed.  Is there any reasonable reason oppose to the patch ? or it
>> will bring in any side-effect.
> Sure there is. Low order allocations have been traditionally non failing
> and changing that behavior is a major obstacle because it opens up a
> door to many bugs. I've tried to do something similar in the past and
> there was a strong resistance against it. Believe me been there done
> that...
>
  hi, Michal

  Recently, I hit the same issue when run a OOM case of the LTP and ksm enable.
 
[  601.937145] Call trace:
[  601.939600] [<ffffffc000086a88>] __switch_to+0x74/0x8c
[  601.944760] [<ffffffc000a1bae0>] __schedule+0x23c/0x7bc
[  601.950007] [<ffffffc000a1c09c>] schedule+0x3c/0x94
[  601.954907] [<ffffffc000a1eb84>] rwsem_down_write_failed+0x214/0x350
[  601.961289] [<ffffffc000a1e32c>] down_write+0x64/0x80
[  601.966363] [<ffffffc00021f794>] __ksm_exit+0x90/0x19c
[  601.971523] [<ffffffc0000be650>] mmput+0x118/0x11c
[  601.976335] [<ffffffc0000c3ec4>] do_exit+0x2dc/0xa74
[  601.981321] [<ffffffc0000c46f8>] do_group_exit+0x4c/0xe4
[  601.986656] [<ffffffc0000d0f34>] get_signal+0x444/0x5e0
[  601.991904] [<ffffffc000089fcc>] do_signal+0x1d8/0x450
[  601.997065] [<ffffffc00008a35c>] do_notify_resume+0x70/0x78

The root case is that ksmd hold the read lock. and the lock is not released.
 scan_get_next_rmap_item
         down_read
                   get_next_rmap_item
                             alloc_rmap_item     #ksmd will loop permanently.

How do you see this kind of situation ? or  let the issue alone.

Thanks
zhongjiang
 
                      
    

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-09-14  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-06 14:47 [PATCH] mm: fix oom work when memory is under pressure zhongjiang
2016-09-09 11:44 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-12  9:51   ` zhong jiang
2016-09-12 11:13     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-12 13:42       ` zhong jiang
2016-09-12 17:44         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-13 13:13           ` zhong jiang
2016-09-13 13:28             ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-13 14:01               ` zhong jiang
2016-09-14  7:13               ` zhong jiang [this message]
2016-09-14  8:42                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-14  8:50                   ` zhong jiang
2016-09-14  9:05                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-14  8:52                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-14  9:25                     ` zhong jiang
2016-09-14 11:29                       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-14 13:52                         ` zhong jiang
2016-09-18  6:00                           ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-18  6:13                             ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-19  4:44                               ` zhong jiang
2016-09-19  7:15                             ` zhong jiang
2016-09-16 22:13                     ` Hugh Dickins
2016-09-17 15:56                       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-18  4:04                       ` zhong jiang
2016-09-18 14:42                         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-19 17:27                           ` Hugh Dickins

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=57D8F8AE.1090404@huawei.com \
    --to=zhongjiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).