On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:01:22PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:45:42AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > >>From: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > >>Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 17:58 > >> > >>On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:16:02AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > >>Hello, Dexuan! > >> > >>A couple of issues has been revealed recently, here are fixes > >>(hashes are from the next tree): > >> > >>5f4b04528b5f mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages > >>5a03b371ad6a mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge() > >>properly > >> > >>These two patches should be added to the serie. > > > >Thanks for the new info! > > > >>Re stable backporting, I'd really wait for some time. Memory reclaim is a > >>quite complex and fragile area, so even if patches are correct by themselves, > >>they can easily cause a regression by revealing some other issues (as it was > >>with the inode reclaim case). > > > >I totally agree. I'm now just wondering if there is any temporary workaround, > >even if that means we have to run the kernel with some features disabled or > >with a suboptimal performance? > > I'm not sure what workload you're seeing it on, but if you could merge > these 7 patches and see that it solves the problem you're seeing and > doesn't cause any regressions it'll be a useful test for the rest of us. AFAIK, with Roman's patches backported to Ubuntu version of 4.15, the problem reported at [1] is solved. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1792349 > -- > Thanks, > Sasha > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
