On Thu 06-12-12 11:12:49, azurIt wrote: > >Dohh. The very same stack mem_cgroup_newpage_charge called from the page > >fault. The heavy inlining is not particularly helping here... So there > >must be some other THP charge leaking out. > >[/me is diving into the code again] > > > >* do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page falls back to handle_pte_fault > >* do_huge_pmd_wp_page_fallback falls back to simple pages so it doesn't > > charge the huge page > >* do_huge_pmd_wp_page splits the huge page and retries with fallback to > > handle_pte_fault > >* collapse_huge_page is not called in the page fault path > >* do_wp_page, do_anonymous_page and __do_fault operate on a single page > > so the memcg charging cannot return ENOMEM > > > >There are no other callers AFAICS so I am getting clueless. Maybe more > >debugging will tell us something (the inlining has been reduced for thp > >paths which can reduce performance in thp page fault heavy workloads but > >this will give us better traces - I hope). > > > Should i apply all patches togather? (fix for this bug, more log > messages, backported fix from 3.5 and this new one) Yes please -- 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>