Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Fri 11-03-16 23:53:18, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-09 19:41 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > >> > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: [...] > >> >> What's

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Fri 11-03-16 23:53:18, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-09 19:41 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > >> > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: [...] > >> >> What's your purpose of OOM rework? From my

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-09 19:41 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> >> > On

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-09 19:41 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> >> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> >>

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > >> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> >> Andrew, > >> >>

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Wed 09-03-16 02:03:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > >> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> >> Andrew, > >> >> could you queue this one as well,

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> Andrew, >> >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-09 1:05 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : >> > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> Andrew, >> >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a >> >> real solution

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Andrew, > >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > >> real solution which I will be working on as

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Wed 09-03-16 00:19:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Andrew, > >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > >> real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: >> Andrew, >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a >> real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to >> reproduce the issue but the

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

2016-03-08 1:08 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko : > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: >> Andrew, >> could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a >> real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to >> reproduce the issue but the patch should help to

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Tue 08-03-16 18:58:24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Tue 08-03-16 18:58:24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the patch should help

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the patch should help

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On (03/08/16 10:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-03-16 12:51:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Hello Michal, > > > > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Andrew, > > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On (03/08/16 10:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 08-03-16 12:51:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Hello Michal, > > > > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Andrew, > > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Tue 08-03-16 12:51:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello Michal, > > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > > real solution which I will be

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Tue 08-03-16 12:51:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello Michal, > > On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > > real solution which I will be

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

Hello Michal, On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the

Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

Hello Michal, On (03/07/16 17:08), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Andrew, > > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > > reproduce the issue but the

[PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > Andrew, > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to some degree at least. Joonsoo wasn't very happy

[PATCH] mm, oom: protect !costly allocations some more (was: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4)

On Mon 29-02-16 22:02:13, Michal Hocko wrote: > Andrew, > could you queue this one as well, please? This is more a band aid than a > real solution which I will be working on as soon as I am able to > reproduce the issue but the patch should help to some degree at least. Joonsoo wasn't very happy