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

From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Tue Mar 08 2016 - 05:38:57 EST

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?


Attachment: vmstats.xz
Description: application/xz