Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wi=vuc6sdu0m9nYd3gb8x5Xgnc6=TH=DTOy7qU96rZ9nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whEjnsANEhTA3aqpNLZ3vv7huP7QAmcAEd-GUxm2YMo-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200723124749.GA7428@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wgyc7en4=HddEYiz_RKJXfqe1JYv3BzHc=+_wYq9ti+LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whQK3OGwExTzCrwwvuuVaQAgs8KsR-Yv8m1BmXoNZZ=jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2007231549540.1016@eggly.anvils> <CAHk-=wgvGOnMF0ePU4xS236bOsP8jouj3rps+ysCaGXvCjh2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200724152424.GC17209@redhat.com> <CAHk-=whuG+5pUeUqdiW4gk0prvqu7GZSMo-6oWv5PdDC5dBr=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjYHvbOs9i39EnUsC6VEJiuJ2e_5gZB5-J5CRKxq80B_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200803131453.GL5174@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200803131453.GL5174@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiU+W2OAHT220uRm+MtO9c44Tehe6a+eio1xyso5rNipQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:14 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> I hope I got it right and this is the latest version of your patches. Btw.
> do you still think that increasing PAGE_WAIT_TABLE_BITS is reasonable.

I suspect it's still very reasonable, but I'd love to have numbers for it.

> In the meantime I have learned that the customer suffering from the
> issue is very unlikely to reboot the machine anytime soon or even
> willing to test a non-trivial patch. We do not own any machine which
> exhibit this problem unfortunately. So it is quite unlikely I can
> help with testing.

Ok.

> Also does it make sense to put this into mmotm tree for a while to get a
> larger testing coverage?

Well, I did the 5.8 release yesterday, so I just put it in the tree
for the 5.9 merge window - I've been running it locally since I posted
it, and while Hugh couldn't prove it improved anything, his results
certainly also didn't say it was bad.

So anybody that tests my top-of-tree will be testing that thing now,
which is likely more than linux-next or mmotm gets (outside of build
testing and the robots).

Of course, I don't know how many people run my development tree,
particularly during the busy merge window, but hey, at worst it will
be in the next linux-next that way. At best, it's not just me, but a
number of other developers.

                   Linus