linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 02:36:39 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:	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>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was:
 Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Andrew,
> > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a
> > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to
> > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to some degree at least.
> 
> Joonsoo wasn't very happy about this approach so let me try a different
> way. What do you think about the following? Hugh, Sergey does it help
> for your load? I have tested it with the Hugh's load and there was no
> major difference from the previous testing so at least nothing has blown
> up as I am not able to reproduce the issue here.

Did not help with my load at all, I'm afraid: quite the reverse,
OOMed very much sooner (as usual on order=2), and with much more
noise (multiple OOMs) than your previous patch.

vmstats.xz attached; sorry, I don't have tracing built in,
and must move on to the powerpc issue before going back to bed.

I do hate replying without having something constructive to say, but
have very little time to think about this, and no bright ideas so far.

I do not understand why it's so easy for me to reproduce, yet impossible
for you - unless it's that you are still doing all your testing in a VM?
Is Sergey the only other to see this issue?

Hugh
Download attachment "vmstats.xz" of type "APPLICATION/x-xz" (8200 bytes)