Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-28 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > >

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-28 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > >

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-28 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:50:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:11:30PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > These patches did not OOM for me on a 2G 32-bit KVM instance while running > > > a stress test for an hour. Preliminary tests on a 64-bit system using a > > > parallel

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-28 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:50:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:11:30PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > These patches did not OOM for me on a 2G 32-bit KVM instance while running > > > a stress test for an hour. Preliminary tests on a 64-bit system using a > > > parallel

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-26 Thread Mel Gorman
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:11:30PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > These patches did not OOM for me on a 2G 32-bit KVM instance while running > > a stress test for an hour. Preliminary tests on a 64-bit system using a > > parallel dd workload did not show anything alarming. > > > > If an OOM is

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-26 Thread Mel Gorman
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:11:30PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > These patches did not OOM for me on a 2G 32-bit KVM instance while running > > a stress test for an hour. Preliminary tests on a 64-bit system using a > > parallel dd workload did not show anything alarming. > > > > If an OOM is

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-26 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:10:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > Both Joonsoo Kim and Minchan Kim have reported premature OOM kills. > The common element is a zone-constrained allocation failings. Two factors > appear to be at fault -- pgdat being considered unreclaimable prematurely > and

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-26 Thread Joonsoo Kim
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:10:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > Both Joonsoo Kim and Minchan Kim have reported premature OOM kills. > The common element is a zone-constrained allocation failings. Two factors > appear to be at fault -- pgdat being considered unreclaimable prematurely > and

[PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-21 Thread Mel Gorman
Both Joonsoo Kim and Minchan Kim have reported premature OOM kills. The common element is a zone-constrained allocation failings. Two factors appear to be at fault -- pgdat being considered unreclaimable prematurely and insufficient rotation of the active list. The series is in three basic parts;

[PATCH 0/5] Candidate fixes for premature OOM kills with node-lru v2

2016-07-21 Thread Mel Gorman
Both Joonsoo Kim and Minchan Kim have reported premature OOM kills. The common element is a zone-constrained allocation failings. Two factors appear to be at fault -- pgdat being considered unreclaimable prematurely and insufficient rotation of the active list. The series is in three basic parts;