Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

This got lost during the rebase. --- >From cb16205a71c29d80425922cfc584373eb14b018e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 07:16:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] fold me "mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj" - skip

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

This got lost during the rebase. --- >From cb16205a71c29d80425922cfc584373eb14b018e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 07:16:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] fold me "mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj" - skip over same thread

[PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

From: Michal Hocko oom_score_adj is shared for the thread groups (via struct signal) but this is not sufficient to cover processes sharing mm (CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD resp. CLONE_SIGHAND) and so we can easily end up in a situation when some processes update their

[PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

From: Michal Hocko oom_score_adj is shared for the thread groups (via struct signal) but this is not sufficient to cover processes sharing mm (CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD resp. CLONE_SIGHAND) and so we can easily end up in a situation when some processes update their oom_score_adj and confuse

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 15:19:32, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:11:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 15:19:32, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:11:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:11:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we can do that. Maybe I should > > > just add a note into the

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:11:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we can do that. Maybe I should > > > just add a note into the

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we can do that. Maybe I should > > just add a note into the log that we are doing that so that people can > > complain? Something

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 13:26:44, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Yes and that leads me to a suspicion that we can do that. Maybe I should > > just add a note into the log that we are doing that so that people can > > complain? Something

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-05-16 11:47:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 30-05-16 11:47:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 11:47:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > ... > > > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon 30-05-16 11:47:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > ... > > > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > ... > > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > > > oom_adj, bool legacy) > >

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > ... > > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > > > oom_adj, bool legacy) > >

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > ... > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > > oom_adj, bool legacy) > > unlock_task_sighand(task, ); > > err_put_task: > >

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Fri 27-05-16 19:18:21, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > ... > > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > > oom_adj, bool legacy) > > unlock_task_sighand(task, ); > > err_put_task: > >

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: ... > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > oom_adj, bool legacy) > unlock_task_sighand(task, ); > err_put_task: > put_task_struct(task); > + > + if (mm) { > + struct

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:18:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: ... > @@ -1087,7 +1105,25 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > oom_adj, bool legacy) > unlock_task_sighand(task, ); > err_put_task: > put_task_struct(task); > + > + if (mm) { > + struct

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

And here again. Get rid of the mm_users check because it is not reliable. --- >From 7681e91cba6bcd45f9ebc5d2dcee3df06c687296 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:50:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same

Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

And here again. Get rid of the mm_users check because it is not reliable. --- >From 7681e91cba6bcd45f9ebc5d2dcee3df06c687296 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michal Hocko Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:50:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of

[PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

From: Michal Hocko oom_score_adj is shared for the thread groups (via struct signal) but this is not sufficient to cover processes sharing mm (CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD resp. CLONE_SIGHAND) and so we can easily end up in a situation when some processes update their

[PATCH 3/6] mm, oom_adj: make sure processes sharing mm have same view of oom_score_adj

From: Michal Hocko oom_score_adj is shared for the thread groups (via struct signal) but this is not sufficient to cover processes sharing mm (CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD resp. CLONE_SIGHAND) and so we can easily end up in a situation when some processes update their oom_score_adj and confuse