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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 C883DC433E2 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9295E20872 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="EV5SVn70" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9295E20872 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 41F008000A; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3CF2880007; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:00:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2E5188000A; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:00:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0185.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.185]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1348380007 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 15:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D284995E7 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76841642094.06.rule58_5b47b850b0b0d X-HE-Tag: rule58_5b47b850b0b0d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5770 Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com [209.85.208.195]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id w10so9674628ljo.0 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 12:00:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AXqOJl5SmNS23EUn7DmXTUU6aYLgyfPvo+AUamH08Ps=; b=EV5SVn70MuPiXaA+/GpI4b2qrg0jB93InY/vaKKkvXw3rt6V19F3iaEfufdWjb2vSa LFgwuEMLZ0kF+u4vLem/Ho+YYOlDTSymGzxy0FWxZiHOsB3Pb3GSFPQ6THq8MehoMw81 61D12qPxoVMXCVN5YnrMpoSh0ZCOqjVhvK2/icCRVt/PPsd4BcWFGL0kAP/7zDq1hN3x a1rzoPThWH5HcKX0GiUC4cxi3kkuCMXpV76kYKiXipe6YgwkiIKVt/YehTDSxdT8FKMQ CKv5YcXmrRHEWyhnCcxlLCZV3yGZBNkQfBJxwnNbBjgGPVYWSZIk3apxM0beTrE2kQJt vtEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AXqOJl5SmNS23EUn7DmXTUU6aYLgyfPvo+AUamH08Ps=; b=bklDvbxsLOXT7jZEBbCISj+NYYVJUNQapMIqWn2bNaGEzDmBHM7077J/Q28CdFzGnj Mg+srNxhE+/NlPzNVBkteVQbX068pMrrmJnH42JaSB5yYNu5gOsNUnshBYwlnOcO/LVR 7HgDlla9bVTJYxxSSvhV2I4FeMvTp8IEHrostU60LSx/5mbO+Rxg3DRRtywh7ZfgTKTd Hh8ZLiSDhcRXCmkvKCapJfst60VWM6M77N+7bief/cN1Xlz+FzZaFlTfvv5vzwnzABo6 wVZeS8fslB3mbn7EH8fQVWvZI3/S9p5aIYTDNnz6b9AxfJqZFIwlEtNdNa2L6YuW/hck sziA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DltPh1Z5TEirJXkdqNS8O1ig3VznGXc/jKgJ57c1ERz4SOUa/ XOVZnFZo1WLIVnNcDsDUnDK/7Zn7i+CK5414XzPbwQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztzAYrR/hpe1uRAGQjKmg0ls00XHM6k9/5+3Vj5L9HrQE3V1E3er3ujQPjsfP8Tn3nR1o1fnGVTi8pnw7kWuo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6c0c:: with SMTP id h12mr5664520ljc.266.1590087625478; Thu, 21 May 2020 12:00:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200501135806.4eebf0b92f84ab60bba3e1e7@linux-foundation.org> <20200519075213.GF32497@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200519084535.GG32497@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name> <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Naresh Kamboju Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 00:30:13 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page To: Michal Hocko Cc: Chris Down , Yafang Shao , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote: > > > Hi Naresh, > > > > > > Naresh Kamboju writes: > > > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell > > > > git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this problem. > > > > > > > > The following two patches have been reverted on next-20200519 and retested the > > > > reproducible steps and confirmed the test case mkfs -t ext4 got PASS. > > > > ( invoked oom-killer is gone now) > > > > > > > > Revert "mm, memcg: avoid stale protection values when cgroup is above > > > > protection" > > > > This reverts commit 23a53e1c02006120f89383270d46cbd040a70bc6. > > > > > > > > Revert "mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection > > > > checks" > > > > This reverts commit 7b88906ab7399b58bb088c28befe50bcce076d82. > > > > > > Thanks Anders and Naresh for tracking this down and reverting. > > > > > > I'll take a look tomorrow. I don't see anything immediately obviously wrong > > > in either of those commits from a (very) cursory glance, but they should > > > only be taking effect if protections are set. > > > > Agreed. If memory.{low,min} is not used then the patch should be > > effectively a nop. > > I was staring into the code and did not see anything. Could you give the > following debugging patch a try and see whether it triggers? These code paths did not touch it seems. but still see the reported problem. Please find a detailed test log output [1] And One more test log with cgroup_disable=memory [2] Test log link, [1] https://pastebin.com/XJU7We1g [2] https://pastebin.com/BZ0BMUVt