From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757660AbcEDIMx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 04:12:53 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53998 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757561AbcEDIMu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 04:12:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0.14] oom detection rework v6
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
References: <1461181647-8039-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20160504054502.GA10899@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <5729AEFB.9060101@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:12:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160504054502.GA10899@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 patchset. Previous kernel
> doesn't need to ensure to trigger compaction and just works fine in
> any case.

IIRC previous kernel somehow subtly never OOM'd for !costly orders. So 
anything that introduces the possibility of OOM may look like regression 
for some corner case workloads. But I don't think that it's OK to not 
OOM for e.g. kernel stack allocations?

> Your series make compaction necessary for all. OOM handling
> is essential part in MM but compaction isn't. OOM handling should not
> depend on compaction. I tested my own benchmark without
> CONFIG_COMPACTION and found that premature OOM happens.
>
> I hope that you try to test something without CONFIG_COMPACTION.

Hmm a valid point, !CONFIG_COMPACTION should be considered. But reclaim 
cannot guarantee forming an order>0 page. But neither does OOM. So would 
you suggest we keep reclaiming without OOM as before, to prevent these 
regressions? Or where to draw the line here?

> Thanks.