lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:52 PM Naresh Kamboju
<naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 17:49, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:01 PM Naresh Kamboju
> > <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:12, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
> > > >
> > > > mem_cgroup_protected currently is both used to set effective low and min
> > > > and return a mem_cgroup_protection based on the result. As a user, this
> > > > can be a little unexpected: it appears to be a simple predicate function,
> > > > if not for the big warning in the comment above about the order in which
> > > > it must be executed.
> > > >
> > > > This change makes it so that we separate the state mutations from the
> > > > actual protection checks, which makes it more obvious where we need to be
> > > > careful mutating internal state, and where we are simply checking and
> > > > don't need to worry about that.
> > >
> > > This patch is causing oom-killer while running mkfs -t ext4 on i386 kernel
> > > running on x86_64 machine version linux-next 5.7.0-rc6-next-20200521.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Narash,
> >
> > Thanks for your report.
> > My suggestion to the issue found by you is reverting this bad commit.
>
> Thanks for giving details on this problem.
> I am not sure who will propose reverting this patch on the linux-next tree.
> Please add Reported-by if it is sane.
>

I will do it.
If no one has objection to my proposal, I will send it tomorrow.

> >
> > As I have explained earlier in another mail thread [1] that the usage
> > around memcg->{emin, elow} is very buggy.
> > We shouldn't use memcg->{emin, elow} in the reclaim context directly,
> > because these two values can be modified by many reclaimers, so the
> > good usage of it is storing the protection value into the
> > scan_control. IOW, different reclaimers have different protection.
> > But unfortunately my suggestion is ignored.
> >
> > We can set them to 0 before using them to workaround the issue found
> > by you, but the fact is that we will introduce a new issue once we fix
> > an old issue.
> >
> > [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200425152418.28388-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com/
>
>
> - Naresh



--
Thanks
Yafang

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-22 18:00    [W:0.063 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site