On Fri 16-12-16 17:47:25, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 05:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> > > > in [1]. I
On 12/16/2016 05:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote:
On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
tuned. But
On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> > in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
> > tuned. But I would be really happy if somebod
On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm and btrfs guys]
On Thu 15-12-16 23:57:04, Nils Holland wrote:
[...]
Of course, none of this are workloads that are new / special in any
way - prior to 4.8, I never experienced any issues doing the exact
same things.
Dec 15 19:02:16 teela
On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm and btrfs guys]
On Thu 15-12-16 23:57:04, Nils Holland wrote:
[...]
Of course, none of this are workloads that are new / special in any
way - prior to 4.8, I never experienced any issues doing the exact
same things.
Dec 15 19:02:16 teela
[CC linux-mm and btrfs guys]
On Thu 15-12-16 23:57:04, Nils Holland wrote:
[...]
> Of course, none of this are workloads that are new / special in any
> way - prior to 4.8, I never experienced any issues doing the exact
> same things.
>
> Dec 15 19:02:16 teela kernel: kworker/u4:5 invoked oom-kil
