lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page
Yafang Shao writes:
>Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
>same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
>these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't
>related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves why
>we always make the same mistake ?
>One possible answer is that we always forget the lifecyle of
>memory.emin before we read it. memory.emin doesn't have the same
>lifecycle with the memcg, while it really has the same lifecyle with
>the reclaimer. IOW, once a reclaimer begins the protetion value should
>be set to 0, and after we traversal the memcg tree we calculate a
>protection value for this reclaimer, finnaly it disapears after the
>reclaimer stops. That is why I highly suggest to add an new protection
>member in scan_control before.

I agree with you that the e{min,low} lifecycle is confusing for everyone -- the
only thing I've not seen confirmation of is any confirmed correlation with the
i386 oom killer issue. If you've validated that, I'd like to see the data :-)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 03:59    [W:0.106 / U:9.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site