Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 10:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > > > > Today I noticed the nfsserver was disabled, probably since months already. > > Starting it gives a OOM, not sure if this is new with 4.7+. > > That's not

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 10:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > > > > Today I noticed the nfsserver was disabled, probably since months already. > > Starting it gives a OOM, not sure if this is new with 4.7+. > > That's not an oom, that's

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Olaf Hering wrote: > > Today I noticed the nfsserver was disabled, probably since months already. > Starting it gives a OOM, not sure if this is new with 4.7+. That's not an oom, that's just an allocation failure. And with order-4, that's

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Olaf Hering wrote: > > Today I noticed the nfsserver was disabled, probably since months already. > Starting it gives a OOM, not sure if this is new with 4.7+. That's not an oom, that's just an allocation failure. And with order-4, that's actually pretty normal.

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-08-16 16:52:03, Olaf Hering wrote: > > I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. > > Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual workload and FireFox is > > still running. > Is the patch >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-08-16 16:52:03, Olaf Hering wrote: > > I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. > > Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual workload and FireFox is > > still running. > Is the patch >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 29-08-16 16:52:03, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Any luck with the testing of this patch? > > I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. > Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 29-08-16 16:52:03, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, Olaf Hering wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Any luck with the testing of this patch? > > I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. > Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, Olaf Hering wrote: > Full dmesg attached. Now.. dmesg-4.8.0-rc3-3.bug994066-default.txt.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 29, Olaf Hering wrote: > Full dmesg attached. Now.. dmesg-4.8.0-rc3-3.bug994066-default.txt.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu, Aug 25, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Any luck with the testing of this patch? I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual workload and FireFox is still running. Today I noticed the

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu, Aug 25, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Any luck with the testing of this patch? I ran rc3 for a few hours on Friday amd FireFox was not killed. Now rc3 is running for a day with the usual workload and FireFox is still running. Today I noticed the

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thursday 25 of August 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 09:43:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thursday 25 of August 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 09:43:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > > > >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 25.08.2016 23:26, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 25-08-16 13:30:23, Ralf-Peter Rohbeck wrote: [...] This worked for me for about 12 hours of my torture test. Logs are at

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 25.08.2016 23:26, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 25-08-16 13:30:23, Ralf-Peter Rohbeck wrote: [...] This worked for me for about 12 hours of my torture test. Logs are at

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu 25-08-16 13:30:23, Ralf-Peter Rohbeck wrote: [...] > This worked for me for about 12 hours of my torture test. Logs are at > https://filebin.net/2rfah407nbhzs69e/OOM_4.8.0-rc2_p1.tar.bz2. Thanks! Can we add your Tested-by: Ralf-Peter Rohbeck to the patch?

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu 25-08-16 13:30:23, Ralf-Peter Rohbeck wrote: [...] > This worked for me for about 12 hours of my torture test. Logs are at > https://filebin.net/2rfah407nbhzs69e/OOM_4.8.0-rc2_p1.tar.bz2. Thanks! Can we add your Tested-by: Ralf-Peter Rohbeck to the patch? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 23.08.2016 00:43, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, fair enough. I would really appreciate if the original reporters could retest with this patch on top of the current Linus tree. The stable backport posted earlier doesn't apply on the current master cleanly but the change is essentially same. mmotm

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 23.08.2016 00:43, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, fair enough. I would really appreciate if the original reporters could retest with this patch on top of the current Linus tree. The stable backport posted earlier doesn't apply on the current master cleanly but the change is essentially same. mmotm

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 09:43:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > > > improvements this late then I will ask to

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 09:43:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > > > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > Any luck with the testing of this patch? Not this week, sorry. Olaf signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Thu, Aug 25, Michal Hocko wrote: > Any luck with the testing of this patch? Not this week, sorry. Olaf signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

2016-08-24 16:04 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 24-08-16 14:01:57, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> > [...] >> > >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

2016-08-24 16:04 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 24-08-16 14:01:57, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. >> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> > [...] >> > > Hello, Michal. >>

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > [...] > > Hello, Michal. > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > Below change try to reuse

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Wed 24-08-16 14:01:57, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > Hello, Michal. > > > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > [...] > > Hello, Michal. > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > Below change try to reuse

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Wed 24-08-16 14:01:57, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > Looks like my mail client eat my reply so I resend. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:33:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > Hello, Michal. > > > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 15:08:05, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I would argue that CONFIG_COMPACTION=n behaves so arbitrary for high > > order workloads that calling any change in that behavior a regression > > is little bit

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 15:08:05, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I would argue that CONFIG_COMPACTION=n behaves so arbitrary for high > > order workloads that calling any change in that behavior a regression > > is little bit exaggerated. > > Well,

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I would argue that CONFIG_COMPACTION=n behaves so arbitrary for high > order workloads that calling any change in that behavior a regression > is little bit exaggerated. Well, the thread info allocations certainly

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I would argue that CONFIG_COMPACTION=n behaves so arbitrary for high > order workloads that calling any change in that behavior a regression > is little bit exaggerated. Well, the thread info allocations certainly haven't been big problems

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial revert to > > Linus tree as well and

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial revert to > > Linus tree as well and then there is not

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 09:40:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.23 at 09:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > Hello, Michal. > > > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > > Below change try to reuse

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 09:40:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.23 at 09:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > Hello, Michal. > > > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > > Below change try to reuse

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.23 at 09:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > [...] > > Hello, Michal. > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > Below change try to reuse should_compact_retry() version for > > !CONFIG_COMPACTION but it

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.23 at 09:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > [...] > > Hello, Michal. > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > Below change try to reuse should_compact_retry() version for > > !CONFIG_COMPACTION but it

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: [...] > Hello, Michal. > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > Below change try to reuse should_compact_retry() version for > !CONFIG_COMPACTION but it turned out that it also causes regression in > Markus report [1].

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: [...] > Hello, Michal. > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > Below change try to reuse should_compact_retry() version for > !CONFIG_COMPACTION but it turned out that it also causes regression in > Markus report [1].

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because > of a

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because > of a

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial revert to > Linus tree as well and then there is not much to discuss. This sounds like the

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial revert to > Linus tree as well and then there is not much to discuss. This sounds like the prudent option. Can

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 09:31:14, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 09:31:14, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 09:31:14, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 09:31:14, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Michal Hocko

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > >

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 13:13 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 13:01:13, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > [1]

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 13:13 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 13:01:13, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > [1]

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 13:01:13, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4 > > > > > > For

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 13:01:13, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4 > > > > > > For

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4 > > > > For the report [1] above: > > > > markus@x4 linux % cat .config | grep

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 12:56 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160731051121.GB307@x4 > > > > For the report [1] above: > > > > markus@x4 linux % cat .config | grep

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > > them were for order-2 (kernel stack)

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 12:16:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > > them were for order-2 (kernel stack)

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:52:06 +0200 > > > Subject: [PATCH]

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon 22-08-16 06:05:28, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > From 899b738538de41295839dca2090a774bdd17acd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:52:06 +0200 > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: prevent

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because > of a high fragmentation

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On 2016.08.22 at 11:32 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because > of a high fragmentation

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [ups, fixing up Greg's email] > > On Mon 22-08-16 11:32:49, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework.

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [ups, fixing up Greg's email] > > On Mon 22-08-16 11:32:49, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework.

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

[ups, fixing up Greg's email] On Mon 22-08-16 11:32:49, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing

Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7

[ups, fixing up Greg's email] On Mon 22-08-16 11:32:49, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM > killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of > them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing

OOM detection regressions since 4.7

Hi, there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because of a high fragmentation and compaction failing to make any forward progress.

OOM detection regressions since 4.7

Hi, there have been multiple reports [1][2][3][4][5] about pre-mature OOM killer invocations since 4.7 which contains oom detection rework. All of them were for order-2 (kernel stack) alloaction requests failing because of a high fragmentation and compaction failing to make any forward progress.