On (02/25/16 17:48), Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which
> > > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles.
> >
> > I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for
> > order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the
> > allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible
> > zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried
> > to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160225092315.gd17...@dhcp22.suse.cz
> >
> Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more.
Hi,
after *preliminary testing* both patches seem to work. at least I don't
see oom-kills and there are some swapouts.
Michal Hocko's
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3836880 2458020 35992 115984 1342868 1181484
Swap: 8388604 2008 8386596
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3836880 2459516 39616 115880 1337748 1180156
Swap: 8388604 2052 8386552
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3836880 2460584 33944 115880 1342352 1179004
Swap: 8388604 2132 8386472
...
Hillf Danton's
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3836880 1661000 554236 116448 1621644 1978872
Swap: 8388604 1548 8387056
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 3836880 1660500 554740 116448 1621640 1979376
Swap: 8388604 1548 8387056
...
I'll do more tests tomorrow.
-ss
