On 2017-02-05 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-02-17 18:36:54, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > I ran to_test/linus-tree/oom_hickups branch (4.10.0-rc6+) for 50
> > hours and it does NOT have the bug! No problems at all so far.
>
> OK, that is definitely good to know. My other fix ("mm, vmscan:
>
On 2017-02-05 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 03-02-17 18:36:54, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > I ran to_test/linus-tree/oom_hickups branch (4.10.0-rc6+) for 50
> > hours and it does NOT have the bug! No problems at all so far.
>
> OK, that is definitely good to know. My other fix ("mm, vmscan:
>
On Fri 03-02-17 18:36:54, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good
> > > > fit. There are some more fixes
On Fri 03-02-17 18:36:54, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good
> > > > fit. There are some more fixes
On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 18:36 -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a
> > > > good
> > > > fit.
On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 18:36 -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a
> > > > good
> > > > fit.
On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good
> > > fit. There are some more fixes sitting on mmotm on top and maybe
> > > we want some of
On 2017-02-01 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good
> > > fit. There are some more fixes sitting on mmotm on top and maybe
> > > we want some of
On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good fit.
> > There are some more fixes sitting on mmotm on top and maybe we want
> > some of them in finall 4.10. Anyway all those pending
On Wed 01-02-17 03:29:28, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Testing with Valinall rc6 released just yesterday would be a good fit.
> > There are some more fixes sitting on mmotm on top and maybe we want
> > some of them in finall 4.10. Anyway all those pending
On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 29-01-17 16:50:03, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's
On 2017-01-30 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 29-01-17 16:50:03, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 04:50:03PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > >
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 04:50:03PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > >
On Sun 29-01-17 16:50:03, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > > couple of weeks
On Sun 29-01-17 16:50:03, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > > couple of weeks
On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > couple of weeks ago shows the newest commit (git log) is
> >
On 2017-01-25 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > OK, I patched & compiled mhocko's git tree from the other day
> > 4.9.0+. (To confirm, weird, but mhocko's git tree I'm using from a
> > couple of weeks ago shows the newest commit (git log) is
> >
On Thu 26-01-17 17:18:58, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-24 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree
> > > with mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't.
> > > Even
On Thu 26-01-17 17:18:58, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-24 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree
> > > with mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't.
> > > Even
On 2017-01-24 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree
> > with mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't.
> > Even with 2G the system oom and hung same as usual. So far the
On 2017-01-24 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree
> > with mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't.
> > Even with 2G the system oom and hung same as usual. So far the
On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-23 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > > shape and my
On Wed 25-01-17 04:02:46, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-23 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > > shape and my
On 2017-01-23 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > > >
On 2017-01-23 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > > >
On Mon 23-01-17 11:04:12, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> 1. In should_reclaim_retry, account for SLAB_RECLAIMABLE as available
>pages when deciding to retry reclaim
I am pretty sure I have considered this but then decided to not go that
way. I do not remember details so I will think about this
On Mon 23-01-17 11:04:12, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> 1. In should_reclaim_retry, account for SLAB_RECLAIMABLE as available
>pages when deciding to retry reclaim
I am pretty sure I have considered this but then decided to not go that
way. I do not remember details so I will think about this
On Mon 23-01-17 10:48:58, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, even that will be race prone for GFP_NOFS callers as
> they'll effectively be racing to see if kswapd or another direct
> reclaimer can reclaim before the OOM conditions are hit. It is by
> design, but it's apparent that a
On Mon 23-01-17 10:48:58, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, even that will be race prone for GFP_NOFS callers as
> they'll effectively be racing to see if kswapd or another direct
> reclaimer can reclaim before the OOM conditions are hit. It is by
> design, but it's apparent that a
On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
[...]
> Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree with
> mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't. Even with
> 2G the system oom and hung same as usual. So far the only thing that
> helps at all was the
On Sun 22-01-17 18:45:59, Trevor Cordes wrote:
[...]
> Also, completely separate from your patch I ran mhocko's 4.9 tree with
> mem=2G to see if lower ram amount would help, but it didn't. Even with
> 2G the system oom and hung same as usual. So far the only thing that
> helps at all was the
On Fri 20-01-17 00:35:44, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko
> >
On Fri 20-01-17 00:35:44, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-19 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko
> >
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:48:58AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > shape and my expectations were not matched so
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:48:58AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > > shape and my expectations were not matched so
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > > consider it further. Can you try the cumulative
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:45:59PM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > > consider it further. Can you try the cumulative
On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > consider it further. Can you try the cumulative patch below? It
> > combines three patches that
> >
> > 1. Allow slab
On 2017-01-20 Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the OOM report. I was expecting it to be a particular
> > shape and my expectations were not matched so it took time to
> > consider it further. Can you try the cumulative patch below? It
> > combines three patches that
> >
> > 1. Allow slab
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:02:32AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:44AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > > Hi! The git tree above version oom'd after < 24 hours (3:02am) so
> > > > it doesn't solve the bug. If you need a oom messages dump let me
> > > > know.
> > >
>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:02:32AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:44AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > > Hi! The git tree above version oom'd after < 24 hours (3:02am) so
> > > > it doesn't solve the bug. If you need a oom messages dump let me
> > > > know.
> > >
>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:44AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > Hi! The git tree above version oom'd after < 24 hours (3:02am) so
> > > it doesn't solve the bug. If you need a oom messages dump let me
> > > know.
> >
> > Yes please.
>
> The first oom from that night attached. Note, the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:35:44AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > Hi! The git tree above version oom'd after < 24 hours (3:02am) so
> > > it doesn't solve the bug. If you need a oom messages dump let me
> > > know.
> >
> > Yes please.
>
> The first oom from that night attached. Note, the
On 2017-01-19 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel
On 2017-01-19 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel
On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > diff --git
On Thu 19-01-17 03:48:50, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > diff --git
On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:54:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:54:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:54:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:54:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On 2017-01-17 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On 2017-01-16 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > You can easily check whether this is memcg related by trying to
> > > run the same workload with cgroup_disable=memory kernel command
> > > line parameter. This will put all the memcg specifics out of the
> > > way.
> >
> > I will try booting now into
On 2017-01-16 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > You can easily check whether this is memcg related by trying to
> > > run the same workload with cgroup_disable=memory kernel command
> > > line parameter. This will put all the memcg specifics out of the
> > > way.
> >
> > I will try booting now into
On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++
On Tue 17-01-17 14:21:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2684,6 +2684,7 @@ static void
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:52:28PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2684,6 +2684,7 @@ static void
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2684,6 +2684,7 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> struct scan_control *sc)
>
On Mon 16-01-17 11:09:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 532a2a750952..46aac487b89a 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2684,6 +2684,7 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> struct scan_control *sc)
>
On Sun 15-01-17 00:27:52, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > > is a full first oom example (attached).
> >
> > 4.7 kernel doesn't
On Sun 15-01-17 00:27:52, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > > is a full first oom example (attached).
> >
> > 4.7 kernel doesn't
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:27:52AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > > is a full first oom example (attached).
> >
> > 4.7
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:27:52AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > > is a full first oom example (attached).
> >
> > 4.7
On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > is a full first oom example (attached).
>
> 4.7 kernel doesn't contain 71c799f4982d ("mm: add per-zone lru list
> stat") so the
On 2017-01-12 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here
> > is a full first oom example (attached).
>
> 4.7 kernel doesn't contain 71c799f4982d ("mm: add per-zone lru list
> stat") so the
On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here is
> a full first oom example (attached).
4.7 kernel doesn't contain 71c799f4982d ("mm: add per-zone lru list
stat") so the OOM report will not tell us whether the Normal zone
On Wed 11-01-17 16:52:32, Trevor Cordes wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure how I can tell if my bug is because of memcgs so here is
> a full first oom example (attached).
4.7 kernel doesn't contain 71c799f4982d ("mm: add per-zone lru list
stat") so the OOM report will not tell us whether the Normal zone
On 2017-01-11 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:11:46PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on
> > > one of the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora
On 2017-01-11 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:11:46PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > > Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on
> > > one of the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:11:46PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
> > the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
> > does on any 4.8
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:11:46PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> > Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
> > the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
> > does on any 4.8
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
> the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
> does on any 4.8 Fedora kernel. I did a vanilla bisect and the bug is
> here:
>
>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:32:43AM -0600, Trevor Cordes wrote:
> Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
> the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
> does on any 4.8 Fedora kernel. I did a vanilla bisect and the bug is
> here:
>
>
Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
does on any 4.8 Fedora kernel. I did a vanilla bisect and the bug is
here:
commit b2e18757f2c9d1cdd746a882e9878852fdec9501
Author: Mel Gorman
Hi! I have biected a nightly oom-killer flood and crash/hang on one of
the boxes I admin. It doesn't crash on Fedora 23/24 4.7.10 kernel but
does on any 4.8 Fedora kernel. I did a vanilla bisect and the bug is
here:
commit b2e18757f2c9d1cdd746a882e9878852fdec9501
Author: Mel Gorman
Date:
80 matches
Mail list logo
