On Wed 08-08-18 21:57:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Also, before the OOM reaper was introduced, we waited until TIF_MEMDIE is
> cleared from the OOM victim thread. Compared to pre OOM reaper era, giving up
> so early is certainly a regression.
We did clear TIF_MEMDIE flag after mmput() in
On Wed 08-08-18 21:57:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Also, before the OOM reaper was introduced, we waited until TIF_MEMDIE is
> cleared from the OOM victim thread. Compared to pre OOM reaper era, giving up
> so early is certainly a regression.
We did clear TIF_MEMDIE flag after mmput() in
On 2018/08/08 5:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/08 5:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t
On 2018/08/08 5:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/08 5:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t
On Wed 08-08-18 08:44:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > What the global OOM killer does in that situation is dump the header
> > anyway:
> >
> > /* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
> > if (!oc->chosen &&
On Wed 08-08-18 08:44:14, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > What the global OOM killer does in that situation is dump the header
> > anyway:
> >
> > /* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
> > if (!oc->chosen &&
On Tue 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > From: Michal Hocko
> > > >
> > > > "memcg, oom: move
On Tue 07-08-18 16:54:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > From: Michal Hocko
> > > >
> > > > "memcg, oom: move
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko
> > >
> > > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > >
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:23:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko
> > >
> > > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > >
On 2018/08/08 5:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
>>> mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
>>> return OOM_ASYNC;
On 2018/08/08 5:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
>>> mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
>>> return OOM_ASYNC;
On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> > and so
On Tue 07-08-18 16:02:47, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> > warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> > and so
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
> > mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> > return OOM_ASYNC;
> > }
> >
> > - if
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 07:15:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct
> > mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> > return OOM_ASYNC;
> > }
> >
> > - if
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:25:53AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> "memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
> warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
> and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard
On Tue 07-08-18 19:15:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Of course, if the hard limit is 0, all processes will be killed after all. But
> Michal is ignoring the fact that if the hard limit were not 0, there is a
> chance
> of saving next process from needlessly killed if we waited until "mm of
>
On Tue 07-08-18 19:15:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Of course, if the hard limit is 0, all processes will be killed after all. But
> Michal is ignoring the fact that if the hard limit were not 0, there is a
> chance
> of saving next process from needlessly killed if we waited until "mm of
>
On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup
> *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> return OOM_ASYNC;
> }
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order))
> + if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg,
On 2018/08/07 16:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ static enum oom_status mem_cgroup_oom(struct mem_cgroup
> *memcg, gfp_t mask, int
> return OOM_ASYNC;
> }
>
> - if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg, mask, order))
> + if (mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(memcg,
From: Michal Hocko
"memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard limit.
Further charges for such a memcg are forced and therefore the hard
From: Michal Hocko
"memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the charge path" has added a
warning triggered when the oom killer cannot find any eligible task
and so there is no way to reclaim the oom memcg under its hard limit.
Further charges for such a memcg are forced and therefore the hard
24 matches
Mail list logo
