From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
willy@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 13:33:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YLTJjJqemt5Uv9vP@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210520142901.3371299-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
On Thu 20-05-21 15:29:01, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> A customer experienced a low-memory situation and decided to issue a
> SIGKILL (i.e. a fatal signal). Instead of promptly terminating as one
> would expect, the aforementioned task remained unresponsive.
>
> Further investigation indicated that the task was "stuck" in the
> reclaim/compaction retry loop. Now, it does not make sense to retry
> compaction when a fatal signal is pending.
Is this really true in general? The memory reclaim is retried even when
fatal signals are pending. Why should be compaction different? I do
agree that retrying way too much is bad but is there any reason why this
special case doesn't follow the max retry logic?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-31 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-19 19:23 [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: bail out on fatal signal during reclaim/compaction retry attempt Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 19:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-19 19:48 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-19 20:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 4:34 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-20 10:20 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-20 11:42 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 11:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-05-20 13:30 ` Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-20 14:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Aaron Tomlin
2021-05-28 12:53 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 11:33 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-05-31 11:35 ` Vlastimil Babka
2021-05-31 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-20 11:09 ` [PATCH v3] " Matthew Wilcox
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=YLTJjJqemt5Uv9vP@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.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 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).