Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated. | Date | Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:21:32 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro > <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> > I think there are two bugs here. > >> > The raid1 bug that Torsten mentions is certainly real (and has been around > >> > for an embarrassingly long time). > >> > The bug that I identified in too_many_isolated is also a real bug and can be > >> > triggered without md/raid1 in the mix. > >> > So this is not a 'full fix' for every bug in the kernel :-), but it could > >> > well be a full fix for this particular bug. > >> > > >> > >> Can we just delete the too_many_isolated() logic? (Crappy comment > >> describes what the code does but not why it does it). > > > > if my remember is correct, we got bug report that LTP may makes misterious > > OOM killer invocation about 1-2 years ago. because, if too many parocess are in > > reclaim path, all of reclaimable pages can be isolated and last reclaimer found > > the system don't have any reclaimable pages and lead to invoke OOM killer. > > We have strong motivation to avoid false positive oom. then, some discusstion > > made this patch. > > > > if my remember is incorrect, I hope Wu or Rik fix me. > > AFAIR, it's right. > > How about this? > > It's rather aggressive throttling than old(ie, it considers not lru > type granularity but zone ) > But I think it can prevent unnecessary OOM problem and solve deadlock problem.
Can you please elaborate your intention? Do you think Wu's approach is wrong?
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |