> On Jul 27, 2019, at 6:13 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:23:30PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>> As mentioned in anther thread, the situation for kmemleak under memory
>> pressure
>> has already been unhealthy. I don't feel comfortable to make it even worse by
>>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:23:30PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> As mentioned in anther thread, the situation for kmemleak under memory
> pressure
> has already been unhealthy. I don't feel comfortable to make it even worse by
> reverting this commit alone. This could potentially make kmemleak kill
On Tue 16-07-19 16:28:21, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 22:07 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 16-07-19 15:21:17, Qian Cai wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Thanks to this commit, there are allocation with __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM that
> > > succeeded would keep trying with __GFP_NOFAIL for
On Wed 17-07-19 01:50:31, Yang Shi wrote:
> When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
> triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
> passed in:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at mm/page_alloc.c:4608
>
On Wed 17-07-19 07:07:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-07-19 01:50:31, Yang Shi wrote:
> > When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
> > triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
> > passed in:
> >
> > WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at
On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 22:07 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 16-07-19 15:21:17, Qian Cai wrote:
> [...]
> > Thanks to this commit, there are allocation with __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM that
> > succeeded would keep trying with __GFP_NOFAIL for kmemleak tracking object
> > allocations.
>
> Well, not
On Tue 16-07-19 15:21:17, Qian Cai wrote:
[...]
> Thanks to this commit, there are allocation with __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM that
> succeeded would keep trying with __GFP_NOFAIL for kmemleak tracking object
> allocations.
Well, not really. Because low order allocations with
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 12:01 -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>
> On 7/16/19 11:23 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 01:50 +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
> > > triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL &
On 7/16/19 11:23 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 01:50 +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
passed in:
WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 01:50 +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
> triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
> passed in:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at mm/page_alloc.c:4608
>
When running ltp's oom test with kmemleak enabled, the below warning was
triggerred since kernel detects __GFP_NOFAIL & ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is
passed in:
WARNING: CPU: 105 PID: 2138 at mm/page_alloc.c:4608
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1c31/0x1d50
Modules linked in: loop dax_pmem dax_pmem_core
11 matches
Mail list logo