Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 02:56:44 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
        "Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List" 
        <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page
Message-ID: <20200529015644.GA84588@chrisdown.name>
References: <CA+G9fYsXnwyGetj-vztAKPt8=jXrkY8QWe74u5EEA3XPW7aikQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200520190906.GA558281@chrisdown.name>
 <20200521095515.GK6462@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200521163450.GV6462@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+G9fYuDWGZx50UpD+WcsDeHX9vi3hpksvBAWbMgRZadb0Pkww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+G9fYs2jg-j_5fdb0OW0G-JzDjN7b8d9qnX7uuk9p4c7mVSig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200528150310.GG27484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CA+G9fYvDXiZ9E9EfU6h0gsJ+xaXY77mRu9Jg+J7C=X4gJ3qvLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200528164121.GA839178@chrisdown.name>
 <CALOAHbAHGOsAUUM7qn=9L1u8kAf6Gztqt=SyHSmZ9XuYZWcKmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALOAHbAHGOsAUUM7qn=9L1u8kAf6Gztqt=SyHSmZ9XuYZWcKmg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.2 (2020-05-25)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Yafang Shao writes:
>Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
>same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
>these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't
>related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why
>we always make the same mistake ?
>One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of
>memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same
>lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with
>the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should
>be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a
>protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the
>reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection
>member in scan_control before.

I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the 
only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the 
i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-)