>> I think this only correct when memcg. Even if swappiness==0, global reclaim
>> swap
>> out anon pages before oom.
>
> Right you are (we really do swap when the file pages are really
> low)! Sorry about the confusion. I kind of became if(global_reclaim)
> block blind...
>
> Then this really
On Mon 15-10-12 10:25:14, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> > index 078701f..308fd77 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> > @@ -640,6 +640,9 @@ swappiness
> > This control is used to
> diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> index 078701f..308fd77 100644
> --- a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> @@ -640,6 +640,9 @@ swappiness
> This control is used to define how aggressive the kernel will swap
> memory pages.
On Mon 15-10-12 18:11:24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/10/10 23:11), Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > From 445c2ced957cd77cbfca44d0e3f5056fed252a34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Michal Hocko
> >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:46:54 +0200
> >Subject: [PATCH] memcg: oom: fix totalpages calculation
(2012/10/10 23:11), Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
As a background, I have noticed that memcg OOM killer kills a wrong
tasks while
(2012/10/10 23:11), Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
As a background, I have noticed that memcg OOM killer kills a wrong
tasks while
On Mon 15-10-12 18:11:24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
(2012/10/10 23:11), Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
From 445c2ced957cd77cbfca44d0e3f5056fed252a34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:46:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memcg: oom: fix totalpages
diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
index 078701f..308fd77 100644
--- a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
@@ -640,6 +640,9 @@ swappiness
This control is used to define how aggressive the kernel will swap
memory pages. Higher
On Mon 15-10-12 10:25:14, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
index 078701f..308fd77 100644
--- a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
+++ b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
@@ -640,6 +640,9 @@ swappiness
This control is used to define how
I think this only correct when memcg. Even if swappiness==0, global reclaim
swap
out anon pages before oom.
Right you are (we really do swap when the file pages are really
low)! Sorry about the confusion. I kind of became if(global_reclaim)
block blind...
Then this really needs a memcg
On Wed 10-10-12 13:50:21, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
> > about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
> > which would be less hackish.
>
> I don't
On Wed 10-10-12 13:50:21, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
I don't see this as
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
> about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
> which would be less hackish.
I don't see this as hackish, if memory.swappiness limits access to swap
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
As a background, I have noticed that memcg OOM killer kills a wrong
tasks while playing with memory.swappiness==0 in a small
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
As a background, I have noticed that memcg OOM killer kills a wrong
tasks while playing with memory.swappiness==0 in a small
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi,
I am sending the patch below as an RFC because I am not entirely happy
about myself and maybe somebody can come up with a different approach
which would be less hackish.
I don't see this as hackish, if memory.swappiness limits access to swap
then
16 matches
Mail list logo
