[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000201d16fb1$acc98ec0$065cac40$@alibaba-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:48:26 +0800
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To: "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
"'Hugh Dickins'" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"'Tetsuo Handa'" <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
"'KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki'" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
> >
> > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which
> > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles.
>
> I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for
> order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the
> allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible
> zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried
> to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160225092315.GD17573@dhcp22.suse.cz
>
Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more.
Hillf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists