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;
Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:01:22 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Stable@vger.kernel.org" <Stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Will the recent memory leak fixes be backported to longterm
 kernels?
Message-ID: <20181102160122.GH194472@sasha-vm>
References: <PU1P153MB0169CB6382E0F047579D111DBFCF0@PU1P153MB0169.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20181102005816.GA10297@tower.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <PU1P153MB0169FE681EF81BCE81B005A1BFCF0@PU1P153MB0169.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PU1P153MB0169FE681EF81BCE81B005A1BFCF0@PU1P153MB0169.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:45:42AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 17:58
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:16:02AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> Hello, Dexuan!
>>
>> A couple of issues has been revealed recently, here are fixes
>> (hashes are from the next tree):
>>
>> 5f4b04528b5f mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages
>> 5a03b371ad6a mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge()
>> properly
>>
>> These two patches should be added to the serie.
>
>Thanks for the new info!
>
>> Re stable backporting, I'd really wait for some time. Memory reclaim is a
>> quite complex and fragile area, so even if patches are correct by themselves,
>> they can easily cause a regression by revealing some other issues (as it was
>> with the inode reclaim case).
>
>I totally agree. I'm now just wondering if there is any temporary workaround,
>even if that means we have to run the kernel with some features disabled or
>with a suboptimal performance?

I'm not sure what workload you're seeing it on, but if you could merge
these 7 patches and see that it solves the problem you're seeing and
doesn't cause any regressions it'll be a useful test for the rest of us.

--
Thanks,
Sasha