[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160308093230.GB3860@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:32:30 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.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>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more
On (03/08/16 10:24), Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[..]
> > @@ -3294,6 +3289,18 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > did_some_progress > 0, no_progress_loops))
> > goto retry;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * !costly allocations are really important and we have to make sure
> > + * the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early due to locks
> > + * contention before we go OOM.
> > + */
> > + if (order && order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> > + if (compact_result <= COMPACT_CONTINUE)
>
> Same here.
> I was going to say that this didn't have effect on Sergey's test, but
> turns out it did :)
I'm sorry, my test is not correct. I have disabled compaction last weeked on
purpose - to provoke more OOM-kills and OOM conditions for reworked printk()
patch set testing (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145734549308803); and I
forgot to re-enable it.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists