Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Tue Mar 08 2016 - 08:57:20 EST
On Tue 08-03-16 18:58:24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/07/16 17:08), 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.
> > Other changes in the compaction are still needed but I would like to not
> > depend on them right now.
> works fine for me.
> $ cat /proc/vmstat | egrep -e "compact|swap"
> pgsteal_kswapd_dma 7
> pgsteal_kswapd_dma32 6457075
> pgsteal_kswapd_normal 1462767
> pgsteal_kswapd_movable 0
> pgscan_kswapd_dma 18
> pgscan_kswapd_dma32 6544126
> pgscan_kswapd_normal 1495604
> pgscan_kswapd_movable 0
> kswapd_inodesteal 29
> kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 1168
> kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 1627
> compact_migrate_scanned 5762793
> compact_free_scanned 54090239
> compact_isolated 1303895
> compact_stall 1542
> compact_fail 1117
> compact_success 425
> compact_kcompatd_wake 0
> no OOM-kills after 6 rounds of tests.
> Tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for retesting!