Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F0CC433EF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 10:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241640AbhKXK6c (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2021 05:58:32 -0500 Received: from shark1.inbox.lv ([194.152.32.81]:55130 "EHLO shark1.inbox.lv" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233895AbhKXK6b (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2021 05:58:31 -0500 Received: from shark1.inbox.lv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shark1-out.inbox.lv (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0D9111814A; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:55:19 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=inbox.lv; s=30062014; t=1637751319; bh=Ii1Ydxju31WL8qCm5cQWmdVpFT2pD3ONL0XsQqWqs80=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=bva11nH58ebVa6TSvQbhUwp6ZfGxFU1zteYf82RnctQ1wv8eOrZxTSrQrU/Yv8gtf nXb1meixEJVC4GaaLkATaC+bYV8x/XhWM6UM6IxRU0CMJcRFaTHvaNYGin93DB1VVg XwyvjG9yZ97gHvGd5RzqGWLck1xZ6TA2a4zmz8JI= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shark1-in.inbox.lv (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BF4111810E; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:55:19 +0200 (EET) Received: from shark1.inbox.lv ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (shark1.inbox.lv [127.0.0.1]) (spamfilter, port 35) with ESMTP id Lg2GQz0JWiX7; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:55:19 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail.inbox.lv (pop1 [127.0.0.1]) by shark1-in.inbox.lv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88767111810D; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:55:19 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail.inbox.lv (unknown [79.105.116.237]) (Authenticated sender: hakavlad@inbox.lv) by mail.inbox.lv (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 82EFC3E6014F; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:55:14 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:54:49 +0900 From: Alexey Avramov To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, neilb@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net, riel@surriel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, david@fromorbit.com, willy@infradead.org, hdanton@sina.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, oleksandr@natalenko.name, kernel@xanmod.org, michael@michaellarabel.com, aros@gmx.com, hakavlad@gmail.com Subject: Re: mm: 5.16 regression: reclaim_throttle leads to stall in near-OOM conditions Message-ID: <20211124195449.33f31e7f@mail.inbox.lv> In-Reply-To: <20211124103550.GE3366@techsingularity.net> References: <20211124011954.7cab9bb4@mail.inbox.lv> <20211124103550.GE3366@techsingularity.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: OK X-ESPOL: G4mERXADmHlDpsG/LZpu5OT4taW+ND8/31T3z7QsmgxU9uyBr7wBfW6TGofmHgq/cWbD Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > it does eventually get killed OOM However, a full minute freeze can be a great evil in many situations - during such a freeze, the system is completely unresponsive. So my next question is: How reasonable is the value MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES? Is it also get "out of thin air"? And would it make sense to have buttons to adjust the timeouts?