lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Will the recent memory leak fixes be backported to longterm kernels?
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:01:22PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 02:45:42AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >>From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> >>Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 17:58
> >>
> >>On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:16:02AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >>Hello, Dexuan!
> >>
> >>A couple of issues has been revealed recently, here are fixes
> >>(hashes are from the next tree):
> >>
> >>5f4b04528b5f mm: don't reclaim inodes with many attached pages
> >>5a03b371ad6a mm: handle no memcg case in memcg_kmem_charge()
> >>properly
> >>
> >>These two patches should be added to the serie.
> >
> >Thanks for the new info!
> >
> >>Re stable backporting, I'd really wait for some time. Memory reclaim is a
> >>quite complex and fragile area, so even if patches are correct by themselves,
> >>they can easily cause a regression by revealing some other issues (as it was
> >>with the inode reclaim case).
> >
> >I totally agree. I'm now just wondering if there is any temporary workaround,
> >even if that means we have to run the kernel with some features disabled or
> >with a suboptimal performance?
>
> I'm not sure what workload you're seeing it on, but if you could merge
> these 7 patches and see that it solves the problem you're seeing and
> doesn't cause any regressions it'll be a useful test for the rest of us.

AFAIK, with Roman's patches backported to Ubuntu version of 4.15, the
problem reported at [1] is solved.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1792349

> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-04 10:17    [W:0.143 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site