linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: vmscan: Reduce throttling due to a failure to make progress

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: <20211229154553.09dd5bb657bc19d45c3de8dd@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Dec 2021 15:45:53 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Alexey Avramov <hakavlad@...ox.lv>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Darrick Wong <djwong@...nel.org>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: vmscan: Reduce throttling due to a failure
 to make progress

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 11:04:18 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:

> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker speaking.
> 
> On 02.12.21 16:06, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Mike Galbraith, Alexey Avramov and Darrick Wong all reported similar
> > problems due to reclaim throttling for excessive lengths of time.
> > In Alexey's case, a memory hog that should go OOM quickly stalls for
> > several minutes before stalling. In Mike and Darrick's cases, a small
> > memcg environment stalled excessively even though the system had enough
> > memory overall.
> 
> Just wondering: this patch afaics is now in -mm and  Linux next for
> nearly two weeks. Is that intentional? I had expected it to be mainlined
> with the batch of patches Andrew mailed to Linus last week, but it
> wasn't among them.

I have it queued for 5.17-rc1.

There is still time to squeeze it into 5.16, just, with a cc:stable. 

Alternatively we could merge it into 5.17-rc1 with a cc:stable, so it
will trickle back with less risk to the 5.17 release.

What do people think?