linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone

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]

Message-Id: <201702221102.EHH69234.OQLOMFSOtJFVHF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:02:21 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:     david@...morbit.com, dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de,
        mgorman@...e.de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-02-17 23:35:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > OK, so it seems that all the distractions are handled now and linux-next
> > > should provide a reasonable base for testing. You said you weren't able
> > > to reproduce the original long stalls on too_many_isolated(). I would be
> > > still interested to see those oom reports and potential anomalies in the
> > > isolated counts before I send the patch for inclusion so your further
> > > testing would be more than appreciated. Also stalls > 10s without any
> > > previous occurrences would be interesting.
> > 
> > I confirmed that linux-next-20170221 with kmallocwd applied can reproduce
> > infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem. Please send your patches to linux-next.
> 
> So I assume that you didn't see the lockup with the patch applied and
> the OOM killer has resolved the situation by killing other tasks, right?
> Can I assume your Tested-by?

No. I tested linux-next-20170221 which does not include your patch.
I didn't test linux-next-20170221 with your patch applied. Your patch will
avoid infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem in shrink_inactive_list().
But we need to test different workloads by other people. Thus, I suggest
you to send your patches to linux-next without my testing.

> 
> Thanks for your testing!
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>