lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]
From
On 09. 08. 22, 11:20, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (22/08/09 18:11), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>>>>> /me needs to confirm.
>>>>
>>>> With that commit reverted, I see no more I/O errors, only oom-killer
>>>> messages (which is OK IMO, provided I write 1G of urandom on a machine w/
>>>> 800M of RAM):
>>>
>>> Hmm... So handle allocation always succeeds in the slow path? (when we
>>> try to allocate it second time)
>>
>> Yeah I can see how handle re-allocation with direct reclaim can make it more
>> successful, but in exchange it oom-kills some user-space process, I suppose.
>> Is oom-kill really a good alternative though?
>
> We likely will need to revert e7be8d1dd983 given that it has some
> user visible changes. But, honestly, failing zram write vs oom-kill
> a user-space is a tough choice.

Note that it OOMs only in my use case -- it's obviously too large zram
on too low memory machine.

But the installer is different. It just creates memory pressure, yet,
reclaim works well and is able to find memory and go on. I would say
atomic vs non-atomic retry in the original (pre-5.19) approach makes the
difference.

And yes, we should likely increase the memory in openQA to avoid too
many reclaims...

PS the kernel finished building, now images are built, hence the new
openQA run hasn't started yet. I will send the revert when it's complete
and all green.

thanks,
--
js
suse labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-09 14:37    [W:0.213 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site