On (03/08/16 10:08), Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-03-16 12:51:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello Michal,
> >
> > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Andrew,
> > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a
> > > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to
> > > > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to some degree at least.
> > >
> > > Joonsoo wasn't very happy about this approach so let me try a different
> > > way. What do you think about the following? Hugh, Sergey does it help
> > > for your load? I have tested it with the Hugh's load and there was no
> > > major difference from the previous testing so at least nothing has blown
> > > up as I am not able to reproduce the issue here.
> >
> > (next-20160307 + "[PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more")
> >
> > seems it's significantly less likely to oom-kill now, but I still can see
> > something like this
>
> Thanks for the testing. This is highly appreciated. If you are able to
> reproduce this then collecting compaction related tracepoints might be
> really helpful.
>
oh, wow... compaction is disabled, somehow.
$ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i CONFIG_COMPACTION
# CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set
I should have checked that, sorry!
will enable and re-test.
-ss
