xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Excessive xfs_inode allocations trigger OOM killer

To: Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Excessive xfs_inode allocations trigger OOM killer
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 19:54:09 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <878tu5xrmx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <87a8f2pd2d.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160920203039.GI340@dastard> <87mvj2mgsg.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160920214612.GJ340@dastard> <20160921080425.GC10300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <878tuetvl6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160926200209.GA23827@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <878tu5xrmx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
On Mon 03-10-16 19:35:18, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Michal Hocko:
> 
> >> I'm not sure if I can reproduce this issue in a sufficiently reliable
> >> way, but I can try.  (I still have not found the process which causes
> >> the xfs_inode allocations go up.)
> >> 
> >> Is linux-next still the tree to test?
> >
> > Yes it contains all the compaction related fixes which we believe to
> > address recent higher order OOMs.
> 
> I tried 4.7.5 instead.  I could not reproduce the issue so far there.
> Thanks to whoever fixed it. :)

The 4.7 stable tree contains a workaround rather than the full fix we
would like to have in 4.9. So if you can then testing the current
linux-next would be really appreciated.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>