On Thu 23-06-16 13:33:47, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:27:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 23-06-16 11:26:48, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > The bulk of the updates are in response to review from Vlastimil Babka > > > > and received a lot more testing than v6. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > Please drop these patches again from mmotm. > > > > > > There has been a number of odd conflicts resulting in at least one major > > > bug where a node-counter is used on a zone that will result in random > > > behaviour. Some of the additional feedback is non-trivial and all of it > > > will need to be resolved against the OOM detection rework and the huge > > > tmpfs implementation. > > > > FWIW I haven't spotted any obvious misbehaving wrt. the OOM detection > > rework. You have kept the per-zone counters which are used for the retry > > logic so I think we should be safe. I am still reading through the > > series though. > > > > The main snag is NR_FILE_DIRTY and NR_WRITEBACK in should_reclaim_retry. > It currently is a random number generator if it reads a zone stat > instead of the node one. In some configurations, it even reads values > after the stats array. OK, I haven't spotted that. As I've said I haven't seen the whole series yet. I have just seen that the counters are there and assumed they are used properly where appropriate. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>