Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 21-02-17 23:35:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > OK, so it seems that all the distractions are handled now and linux-next > > > should provide a reasonable base for testing. You said you weren't able > > > to reproduce the original long stalls on too_many_isolated(). I would be > > > still interested to see those oom reports and potential anomalies in the > > > isolated counts before I send the patch for inclusion so your further > > > testing would be more than appreciated. Also stalls > 10s without any > > > previous occurrences would be interesting. > > > > I confirmed that linux-next-20170221 with kmallocwd applied can reproduce > > infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem. Please send your patches to linux-next. > > So I assume that you didn't see the lockup with the patch applied and > the OOM killer has resolved the situation by killing other tasks, right? > Can I assume your Tested-by? No. I tested linux-next-20170221 which does not include your patch. I didn't test linux-next-20170221 with your patch applied. Your patch will avoid infinite too_many_isolated() loop problem in shrink_inactive_list(). But we need to test different workloads by other people. Thus, I suggest you to send your patches to linux-next without my testing. > > Thanks for your testing! > -- > 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>
