Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated.

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > I think there are two bugs here.
> >> > The raid1 bug that Torsten mentions is certainly real (and has been around
> >> > for an embarrassingly long time).
> >> > The bug that I identified in too_many_isolated is also a real bug and can be
> >> > triggered without md/raid1 in the mix.
> >> > So this is not a 'full fix' for every bug in the kernel :-), but it could
> >> > well be a full fix for this particular bug.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Can we just delete the too_many_isolated() logic?  (Crappy comment
> >> describes what the code does but not why it does it).
> >
> > if my remember is correct, we got bug report that LTP may makes misterious
> > OOM killer invocation about 1-2 years ago. because, if too many parocess are in
> > reclaim path, all of reclaimable pages can be isolated and last reclaimer found
> > the system don't have any reclaimable pages and lead to invoke OOM killer.
> > We have strong motivation to avoid false positive oom. then, some discusstion
> > made this patch.
> >
> > if my remember is incorrect, I hope Wu or Rik fix me.
> 
> AFAIR, it's right.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> It's rather aggressive throttling than old(ie, it considers not lru
> type granularity but zone )
> But I think it can prevent unnecessary OOM problem and solve deadlock problem.

Can you please elaborate your intention? Do you think Wu's approach is wrong?



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/