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=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 73A81C43444 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AB32087E for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:09:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1547575764; bh=z3GIgwB7lCr7UhEmS3J/MaQHesC6ee/wF/Lm4RNQvRU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=VdddhuAG/q1dgDTwiYFhEvswZa98aTNZNkoJwfJPRfwW069q3Gn2isQRTdJrLXwrf eVLqg18PfEHYU/ypj2Wdhb0JJf3LUrir2nbvB+Jgw5AVf4W3SORnfSGvUNLcgbVm3y sKPw5dCRjeKLFtIxepIaTnZqMGjRp+tLGHxAQ0LY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388670AbfAOSJW (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:09:22 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44462 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388666AbfAOSJV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:09:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9843F20859; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:09:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1547575760; bh=z3GIgwB7lCr7UhEmS3J/MaQHesC6ee/wF/Lm4RNQvRU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jhg5BuuhliZDO2vlp3KSiwt7UHbwdwgMwB5RKqZ/+dfBHFzZMoAPEtfP9pXxN0e5a PJbWun2n3X3P5mLM6bgX3WZjC7mpOGbOS4iX3QXzANatk3rFlRcj/5b4QernCJHw+b VwXigWFIoKdMGWnLtANgARwDeBjPXyRZUN1bk4Mg= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:09:18 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Michal Hocko Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com, david@fromorbit.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, jack@suse.cz, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, shakeelb@google.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tytso@mit.edu, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm, memcg: fix reclaim deadlock with writeback" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree Message-ID: <20190115180918.GC23873@kroah.com> References: <154747783690179@kroah.com> <20190115153444.GD7283@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190115155131.GA17724@kroah.com> <20190115174036.GA24149@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190115174036.GA24149@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:40:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 15-01-19 16:51:31, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 04:34:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I do not see a straightforward backport of this patch without pulling > > > more changes in. Do we have anybody to actually hit the issue on those > > > older kernels? While the issue is possible in principle I do not > > > remember anybody complaining. > > > > If no one is complaining, that's fine, you just got this message because > > you put this in the commit: > > > > > > Fixes: c3b94f44fcb0 ("memcg: further prevent OOM with too many dirty pages") > > > > Which means any kernel newer than 4.2 (and some older stable releases) > > has the issue that this patch is trying to fix. If it doesn't need to > > be backported that far, wonderful! > > After a second thought, we are not really affected all the way down to > c3b94f44fcb0. We do account page tables to memcgs only since > 3e79ec7ddc33 ("arch: x86: charge page tables to kmemcg") 4.8+. Without > that there is no realy memcg reclaim and thus not wait_on_page_writeback. > > So my Fixes is a bit misleading. Sorry about that. Not a problem, thanks for looking into it. As you say 4.8+, this didn't apply to 4.9 either, so do I need to look into doing a manual backport there? thanks, greg k-h