On Thu 09-03-17 09:16:25, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 10:12 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 08-03-17 10:54:57, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > In fact, false OOM kills with that kind of workload is
> > > how we ended up getting the "too many isolated" logic
> > > in the first place.
> > Right, but the retry logic was considerably different than what we
> > have these days. should_reclaim_retry considers amount of reclaimable
> > memory. As I've said earlier if we see a report where the oom hits
> > prematurely with many NR_ISOLATED* we know how to fix that.
>
> Would it be enough to simply reset no_progress_loops
> in this check inside should_reclaim_retry, if we know
> pageout IO is pending?
>
> if (!did_some_progress) {
> unsigned long write_pending;
>
> write_pending = zone_page_state_snapshot(zone,
> NR_ZONE_WRITE_PENDING);
>
> if (2 * write_pending > reclaimable) {
> congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> return true;
> }
> }
I am not really sure what problem we are trying to solve right now to be
honest. I would prefer to keep the logic simpler rather than over
engeneer something that is even not needed.
--
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>
