[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160302123917.GF26686@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:39:17 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
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>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
On Wed 02-03-16 11:28:46, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 02:38:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I'd expect a build in 224M
> > > RAM plus 2G of swap to take so long, that I'd be very grateful to be
> > > OOM killed, even if there is technically enough space. Unless
> > > perhaps it's some superfast swap that you have?
> >
> > the swap partition is a standard qcow image stored on my SSD disk. So
> > I guess the IO should be quite fast. This smells like a potential
> > contributor because my reclaim seems to be much faster and that should
> > lead to a more efficient reclaim (in the scanned/reclaimed sense).
>
> Hmm... This looks like one of potential culprit. If page is in
> writeback, it can't be migrated by compaction with MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT.
> In this case, this page works as pinned page and prevent compaction.
> It'd be better to check that changing 'migration_mode = MIGRATE_SYNC' at
> 'no_progress_loops > XXX' will help in this situation.
Would it make sense to use MIGRATE_SYNC for !costly allocations by
default?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists