Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S980797AbdDYGdO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:33:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37028 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765920AbdDYGdH (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:33:07 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com CA1F267EA7 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sgruszka@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com CA1F267EA7 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:33:03 +0200 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, riel@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: do not loop on too_many_isolated for ever Message-ID: <20170425063245.GA8208@redhat.com> References: <20170309180540.GA8678@cmpxchg.org> <20170310102010.GD3753@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201703102044.DBJ04626.FLVMFOQOJtOFHS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201704231924.GDF05718.LQSMtJOOFOFHFV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170424123936.GA6152@redhat.com> <201704242206.IEF52621.HFJLFFtOSVOQMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201704242206.IEF52621.HFJLFFtOSVOQMO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 06:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2140 Lines: 44 On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:06:32PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 07:24:21PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2017/03/10 20:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > >> I am definitely not against. There is no reason to rush the patch in. > > > > > > > > I don't hurry if we can check using watchdog whether this problem is occurring > > > > in the real world. I have to test corner cases because watchdog is missing. > > > > > > > Ping? > > > > > > This problem can occur even immediately after the first invocation of > > > the OOM killer. I believe this problem can occur in the real world. > > > When are we going to apply this patch or watchdog patch? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 4.11.0-rc7-next-20170421+ (root@ccsecurity) (gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-11) (GCC) ) #588 SMP Sun Apr 23 17:38:02 JST 2017 > > > [ 0.000000] Command line: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-4.11.0-rc7-next-20170421+ root=UUID=17c3c28f-a70a-4666-95fa-ecf6acd901e4 ro vconsole.keymap=jp106 crashkernel=256M vconsole.font=latarcyrheb-sun16 security=none sysrq_always_enabled console=ttyS0,115200n8 console=tty0 LANG=en_US.UTF-8 debug_guardpage_minorder=1 > > > > Are you debugging memory corruption problem? > > No. Just a random testing trying to find how we can avoid flooding of > warn_alloc_stall() warning messages while also avoiding ratelimiting. This is not right way to stress mm subsystem, debug_guardpage_minorder= option is for _debug_ purpose. Use mem= instead if you want to limit available memory. > > FWIW, if you use debug_guardpage_minorder= you can expect any > > allocation memory problems. This option is intended to debug > > memory corruption bugs and it shrinks available memory in > > artificial way. Taking that, I don't think justifying any > > patch, by problem happened when debug_guardpage_minorder= is > > used, is reasonable. > > > > Stanislaw > > This problem occurs without debug_guardpage_minorder= parameter and So please justify your patches by that. Thanks Stanislaw