linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions

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:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:51:25 +0200
From:   Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Ralf-Peter Rohbeck" <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>,
        Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] reintroduce compaction feedback for OOM decisions

On Tuesday 06 of September 2016, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> After several people reported OOM's for order-2 allocations in 4.7 due to
> Michal Hocko's OOM rework, he reverted the part that considered compaction
> feedback [1] in the decisions to retry reclaim/compaction. This was to
> provide a fix quickly for 4.8 rc and 4.7 stable series, while mmotm had an
> almost complete solution that instead improved compaction reliability.
> 
> This series completes the mmotm solution and reintroduces the compaction
> feedback into OOM decisions. The first two patches restore the state of
> mmotm before the temporary solution was merged, the last patch should be
> the missing piece for reliability. The third patch restricts the hardened
> compaction to non-costly orders, since costly orders don't result in OOMs
> in the first place.
> 
> Some preliminary testing suggested that this approach should work, but I
> would like to ask all who experienced the regression to please retest
> this. You will need to apply this series on top of tag
> mmotm-2016-08-31-16-06 from the mmotm git tree [2]. Thanks in advance!

My "rm -rf copyX; cp -al org copyX" test x10 in parallel worked without any 
OOM.


-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )