Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (02/25/16 17:48), Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which
> > > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles.
> > 
> > I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for
> > order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the
> > allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible
> > zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried
> > to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160225092315.GD17573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more.


Hi,

after *preliminary testing* both patches seem to work. at least I don't
see oom-kills and there are some swapouts.

Michal Hocko's
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        3836880     2458020       35992      115984     1342868     1181484
Swap:       8388604        2008     8386596

              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        3836880     2459516       39616      115880     1337748     1180156
Swap:       8388604        2052     8386552

              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        3836880     2460584       33944      115880     1342352     1179004
Swap:       8388604        2132     8386472
...




Hillf Danton's
              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        3836880     1661000      554236      116448     1621644     1978872
Swap:       8388604        1548     8387056

              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:        3836880     1660500      554740      116448     1621640     1979376
Swap:       8388604        1548     8387056

...


I'll do more tests tomorrow.


	-ss