[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+G9fYuDWGZx50UpD+WcsDeHX9vi3hpksvBAWbMgRZadb0Pkww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 00:30:13 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
"Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List"
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists