Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp3856448imm; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 07:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYfwrphOmjmF1HNwKTEc7wqVKidQ+qmWF7zcNzI0IFTBGc9mV839Yf6SqI7BXvleBiBjWYi X-Received: by 2002:a63:7a45:: with SMTP id j5-v6mr35262482pgn.363.1536156419103; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:06:59 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1536156419; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=AS0dp9wgCYtmAfQZN/4S0TAgOwjcUAF9ljr151nyDtF6Gg91IdtQyPo8Ok0Dl7VpGz eCAOoz2CK4rscFIJ1HTw/9ECTsmro1UgndonaLhlr1hqIsQ8/03txEkRbNK/yBxGtI1A iuFRGwWjMlAM7M5h1pi3na8F2X3OBNeCdZcGzsLUhjhgnoFC+ho7s+5LakgJIVHUZ2DZ 8+3S8Ek1Tj1GwOH03WXQ1RF00HMI1Yaqh/ZxhJh1CknWTMZgIHYRSriN5kpVehCi3xuy ZqrgVUGemSxsyz4IJruWpysdleKbzqGkuIzVHqHu4B3wUT3lqj3u0vB+y5ujD7O7XbQS KUGw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=1LVmY2V+mQv3sPEYBH+lAyzliblVg2lAS/fm912kjWo=; b=MPozPKzyZt0jX+3OYBamFYtxBZ8U6L2JlBTKSGkHnkTbKVZwyOgYkp1ISVd8y7HbGp QCy17PDZed9AdFD0/wDw+HSykqQwuaCLGdU5yIvCnHA2Y/HJ+ia2iKDWRnJ4BkGU26Zm GZQmXp3EUSs08J39JMXlAYpzxqTy/6cDFnjzzIXEDzzWIHoTmvNYtsBoRbsP0dnFlvLM aLFAEWHUEREnwvC3A1d2mA0hZYxy/W8Rw0PQcN2wb0DeziPrzz5yqrpmWNUuRqMxZr90 1fDqniXGfOR8RmL2MD6V1EQ4axGQJQNo12vrZuoQMnvPXyJBbJmlOAvvmJoi2vHhkaQg NO6A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v7-v6si1898846plp.263.2018.09.05.07.06.43; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727577AbeIESfR (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33098 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726008AbeIESfQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:35:16 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11184ACE3; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:04:51 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: PF_WQ_WORKER threads must sleep at should_reclaim_retry(). Message-ID: <20180905140451.GG14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <201808240031.w7O0V5hT019529@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <195a512f-aecc-f8cf-f409-6c42ee924a8c@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20180905134038.GE14951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <81cc1f29-e42e-7813-dc70-5d6d9e999dd1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81cc1f29-e42e-7813-dc70-5d6d9e999dd1@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 05-09-18 22:53:33, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/09/05 22:40, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Changelog said > > > > "Although this is possible in principle let's wait for it to actually > > happen in real life before we make the locking more complex again." > > > > So what is the real life workload that hits it? The log you have pasted > > below doesn't tell much. > > Nothing special. I just ran a multi-threaded memory eater on a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel. I strongly suspec that your test doesn't really represent or simulate any real and useful workload. Sure it triggers a rare race and we kill another oom victim. Does this warrant to make the code more complex? Well, I am not convinced, as I've said countless times. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs