On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:37 PM Chris Down wrote:
>
> Yafang Shao writes:
> >On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down wrote:
> >>
> >> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> >> >After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
> >>
> >> Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the
Michal Hocko writes:
I would really prefer to do that work on top of the fixes we (used to)
have in mmotm (with the fixup).
Oh, for sure. We should reintroduce the patches with the fix, and then look at
longer-term solutions once that's in :-)
On Thu 18-06-20 13:37:43, Chris Down wrote:
> Yafang Shao writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down wrote:
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > >After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
> > >
> > > Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the
Yafang Shao writes:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down wrote:
Naresh Kamboju writes:
>After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the bottom of this :-)
I'll send out a new version tomorrow with the fixes applied
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down wrote:
>
> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> >After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
>
> Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the bottom of this
> :-)
>
> I'll send out a new version tomorrow with the fixes applied and both of
Naresh Kamboju writes:
After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the bottom of this :-)
I'll send out a new version tomorrow with the fixes applied and both of you
credited in the changelog for the detection and fix.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 21:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 17-06-20 21:23:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > [Our emails have crossed]
> > >
> > > On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > > mkfs
On Wed 17-06-20 21:23:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > [Our emails have crossed]
> >
> > On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > mkfs -t ext4 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG04ACA100N_Y8RQK14KF6XF
> > > >
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> [Our emails have crossed]
>
> On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > mkfs -t ext4 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG04ACA100N_Y8RQK14KF6XF
> > > mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018)
> > > Creating filesystem with
[Our emails have crossed]
On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > mkfs -t ext4 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG04ACA100N_Y8RQK14KF6XF
> > mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018)
> > Creating filesystem with 244190646 4k blocks and 61054976 inodes
> > Filesystem UUID:
Michal Hocko writes:
and it makes some sense. Except for the root memcg where we do not
account any memory. Adding if (mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) return false;
should do the trick. The same is the case for mem_cgroup_below_low.
Could you give it a try please just to confirm?
Oh, of course :-)
On Wed 17-06-20 19:07:20, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Hi Naresh,
> > > >
> > > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > > As a part of
Naresh Kamboju writes:
mkfs -t ext4 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-TOSHIBA_MG04ACA100N_Y8RQK14KF6XF
mke2fs 1.43.8 (1-Jan-2018)
Creating filesystem with 244190646 4k blocks and 61054976 inodes
Filesystem UUID: 7c380766-0ed8-41ba-a0de-3c08e78f1891
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840,
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Hi Naresh,
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > > git bisected
On Fri 12-06-20 15:13:22, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Yafang Shao writes:
> > > Agreed. Even if e{low,min} might still have some rough
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Yafang Shao writes:
> > Agreed. Even if e{low,min} might still have some rough edges I am
> > completely puzzled how we could end up oom if
On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > Yafang Shao writes:
> > > Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
> > > same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
> > > these two patches are in
On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> Yafang Shao writes:
> > Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
> > same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
> > these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't
> > related
Yafang Shao writes:
Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
these two patches are in the same patchset. Although this issue isn't
related with the issue found by Naresh, we have to ask ourselves
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:41 AM Chris Down wrote:
>
> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> >On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 20:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri 22-05-20 02:23:09, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> > My apology !
> >> > As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> >> > Bad :
Naresh Kamboju writes:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 20:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 22-05-20 02:23:09, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> My apology !
> As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> Bad : next-20200430 (still reproducible on next-20200519)
> Good : next-20200429
>
>
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 20:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 22-05-20 02:23:09, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > My apology !
> > As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> > Bad : next-20200430 (still reproducible on next-20200519)
> > Good : next-20200429
> >
> > The git
On Fri 22-05-20 02:23:09, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> My apology !
> As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> Bad : next-20200430 (still reproducible on next-20200519)
> Good : next-20200429
>
> The git tree / tag used for testing is from linux next-20200430 tag and
>
[Sorry for a late reply - was offline for few days]
On Thu 21-05-20 17:58:55, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:06:28PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> >From d9e7ed15d1c9248a3fd99e35e82437549154dac7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Weiner
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:06:28PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > do_memsw_account() used to be automatically false when the cgroup
> > > controller was disabled. Now that it's replaced by
> > >
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:06:28PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > do_memsw_account() used to be automatically false when the cgroup
> > controller was disabled. Now that it's replaced by
> > cgroup_memory_noswap, for which this isn't true, make the
> >
My apology !
As per the test results history this problem started happening from
Bad : next-20200430 (still reproducible on next-20200519)
Good : next-20200429
The git tree / tag used for testing is from linux next-20200430 tag and reverted
following three patches and oom-killer problem fixed.
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> Very much appreciate you guys tracking it down so quickly. Sorry about
> the breakage.
>
> I think mem_cgroup_disabled() checks are pretty good markers of public
> entry points to the memcg API, so I'd prefer that even if a bit more
> verbose. What
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:44:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 21-05-20 05:24:27, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Hi Naresh,
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > > git bisected
On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > Hi Naresh,
> >
> > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this
> > >
On Thu 21-05-20 05:24:27, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > > Hi Naresh,
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Hi Naresh,
> > > >
> > > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > > As a part of investigation
On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Hi Naresh,
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > > git
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > Hi Naresh,
> >
> > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this
> >
On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> Hi Naresh,
>
> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this problem.
> >
> > The following two patches have been reverted on
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:59 PM Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 08:10, Yafang Shao wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:00 AM Naresh Kamboju
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:26, Naresh Kamboju
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This issue is specific on
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 00:39, Chris Down wrote:
> > Since you have i386 hardware available, and I don't, could you please apply
> > only "avoid stale protection" again and check if it only happens with that
> > commit, or requires both?
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 00:39, Chris Down wrote:
>
> Hi Naresh,
>
> Naresh Kamboju writes:
> >As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> >git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this problem.
> >
> >The following two patches have been reverted on
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 08:10, Yafang Shao wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:00 AM Naresh Kamboju
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:26, Naresh Kamboju
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This issue is specific on 32-bit architectures i386 and arm on linux-next
> > > tree.
> > > As per the
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:00 AM Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:26, Naresh Kamboju
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This issue is specific on 32-bit architectures i386 and arm on linux-next
> > tree.
> > As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> > Bad :
Hi Naresh,
Naresh Kamboju writes:
As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
git bisected the problem and found bad commit(s) which caused this problem.
The following two patches have been reverted on next-20200519 and retested the
reproducible steps and confirmed the
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:26, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>
>
> This issue is specific on 32-bit architectures i386 and arm on linux-next
> tree.
> As per the test results history this problem started happening from
> Bad : next-20200430
> Good : next-20200429
>
> steps to reproduce:
> dd
FYI,
This issue is specific on 32-bit architectures i386 and arm on linux-next tree.
As per the test results history this problem started happening from
Bad : next-20200430
Good : next-20200429
steps to reproduce:
dd if=/dev/disk/by-id/ata-SanDisk_SSD_PLUS_120GB_190504A00573
of=/dev/null bs=1M
On Tue 19-05-20 10:11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 18-05-20 19:40:55, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > Thanks for looking into this problem.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 02:28, Andrew Morton
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 1
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 18-05-20 19:40:55, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > Thanks for looking into this problem.
> >
> > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 02:28, Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 1 May 2020 18:08:28 +0530 Naresh Kamboju
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Mon 18-05-20 19:40:55, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this problem.
>
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 02:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 May 2020 18:08:28 +0530 Naresh Kamboju
> > wrote:
> >
> > > mkfs -t ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 kernel running on x86_64 device
>
Thanks for looking into this problem.
On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 02:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 May 2020 18:08:28 +0530 Naresh Kamboju
> wrote:
>
> > mkfs -t ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 kernel running on x86_64 device
> > and started happening on linux -next master branch kernel tag
On Fri, 1 May 2020 18:08:28 +0530 Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
> mkfs -t ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 kernel running on x86_64 device
> and started happening on linux -next master branch kernel tag next-20200430
> and next-20200501. We did not bisect this problem.
It would be wonderful if you
mkfs -t ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 kernel running on x86_64 device
and started happening on linux -next master branch kernel tag next-20200430
and next-20200501. We did not bisect this problem.
metadata
git branch: master
git repo:
50 matches
Mail list logo
