Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Thu 12-05-16 11:23:34, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > >> 2016-05-04

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Thu 12-05-16 11:23:34, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:23:34AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:23:34AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > >> 2016-05-04

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > [...] > > >> > progress. What is the usual

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue 10-05-16 17:00:08, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-10 16:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka : > > On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> > >> You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported > >> problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue 10-05-16 17:00:08, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-10 16:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka : > > On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> > >> You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported > >> problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are > >>

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : [...] > >> > progress. What is the usual reason to disable compaction in the

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Tue 10-05-16 15:41:04, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : [...] > >> > progress. What is the usual reason to disable compaction in the first > >> > place? > >> > >> I don't

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-10 16:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka : > On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported >> problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are >> set. In this case, compaction easily

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-10 16:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka : > On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported >> problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are >> set. In this case, compaction easily returns

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are set. In this case, compaction easily returns COMPACT_COMPLETE and your logic will stop retry. Compaction isn't

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On 05/10/2016 08:41 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: You applied band-aid for CONFIG_COMPACTION and fixed some reported problem but it is also fragile. Assume almost pageblock's skipbit are set. In this case, compaction easily returns COMPACT_COMPLETE and your logic will stop retry. Compaction isn't

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> >

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-05 3:16 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > This is v6 of the

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > This is v6 of the series. The previous version

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 23:32:31, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The >

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The >> > code hasn't changed much since

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

2016-05-04 17:47 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The >> > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 10:12:43, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with > >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh > >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 10:12:43, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with > >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh > >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The > > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing > > bug (patch 1) which just got

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed 04-05-16 14:45:02, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The > > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing > > bug (patch 1) which just got

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with > >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh > >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with > >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh > >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with !costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I think that these show the problem of this

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with !costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I think that these show the problem of this

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing > bug (patch 1) which just got much more severe and visible with this > series. Other

Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > > This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The > code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing > bug (patch 1) which just got much more severe and visible with this > series. Other

[PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

Hi, This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing bug (patch 1) which just got much more severe and visible with this series. Other than that I have reorganized the series and put the compaction feedback

[PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6

Hi, This is v6 of the series. The previous version was posted [1]. The code hasn't changed much since then. I have found one old standing bug (patch 1) which just got much more severe and visible with this series. Other than that I have reorganized the series and put the compaction feedback