[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvIk3SdC7wP3uItR@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:11:57 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
minchan@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
avromanov@...rdevices.ru, ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]
On (22/08/09 17:43), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (22/08/09 10:12), Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > So currently, I blame:
> > > commit e7be8d1dd983156bbdd22c0319b71119a8fbb697
> > > Author: Alexey Romanov <avromanov@...rdevices.ru>
> > > Date: Thu May 12 20:23:07 2022 -0700
> > >
> > > zram: remove double compression logic
> > >
> > >
> > > /me needs to confirm.
> >
> > With that commit reverted, I see no more I/O errors, only oom-killer
> > messages (which is OK IMO, provided I write 1G of urandom on a machine w/
> > 800M of RAM):
>
> Hmm... So handle allocation always succeeds in the slow path? (when we
> try to allocate it second time)
Yeah I can see how handle re-allocation with direct reclaim can make it more
successful, but in exchange it oom-kills some user-space process, I suppose.
Is oom-kill really a good alternative though?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists