Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:39:01 +0900 | From | Minchan Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: try to exhaust highatomic reserve before the OOM |
| |
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:34:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Looks much better. Thanks! I am wondering whether we want to have this > marked for stable. The patch is quite non-intrusive and fires only when > we are really OOM. It is definitely better to try harder than go and > disrupt the system by the OOM killer. So I would add > Fixes: 0aaa29a56e4f ("mm, page_alloc: reserve pageblocks for high-order atomic allocations on demand") > Cc: stable # 4.4+
Thanks for the information.
> > The backport will look slightly different for kernels prior 4.6 because > we do not have should_reclaim_retry yet but the check might hook right > before __alloc_pages_may_oom.
As I just got one report and I didn't see similar problem in LKML recently, I didn't mark it to the stable given that patchset size in v1. However, with review, it becomes simple(Thanks, Michal and Vlastimil) and I should admit my ladar is too limited so if you think it's worth, I don't mind.
For the stable, {3,4}/4 are must but once we decide, I want to backport all patches {1-4}/4 because without {1,2}, nr_reserved_highatomic mismatch can happen so that unreserve logic doesn't work until force logic is triggered when no_progress_loops is greater than MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES. It happend very easily in my test. Withtout {1,2}, it works but looks no-good for me.
> -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
| |