On Tue 30-10-18 22:57:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 21:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I misunderstood your concern. oom_reaper would back off without
> > MMF_OOF_SKIP as well. You are right we cannot assume anything about
> > close callbacks so MMF_OOM_SKIP has to come before that. I will
On Tue 30-10-18 22:57:37, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 21:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I misunderstood your concern. oom_reaper would back off without
> > MMF_OOF_SKIP as well. You are right we cannot assume anything about
> > close callbacks so MMF_OOM_SKIP has to come before that. I will
On 2018/10/30 21:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I misunderstood your concern. oom_reaper would back off without
> MMF_OOF_SKIP as well. You are right we cannot assume anything about
> close callbacks so MMF_OOM_SKIP has to come before that. I will move it
> behind the pagetable freeing.
>
And at that
On 2018/10/30 21:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I misunderstood your concern. oom_reaper would back off without
> MMF_OOF_SKIP as well. You are right we cannot assume anything about
> close callbacks so MMF_OOM_SKIP has to come before that. I will move it
> behind the pagetable freeing.
>
And at that
On Tue 30-10-18 21:02:40, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@
On Tue 30-10-18 21:02:40, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@
On 2018/10/30 20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>
On 2018/10/30 20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>
On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
> >>> }
> >>>
On Tue 30-10-18 18:47:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
> >>> }
> >>>
On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
>>> }
>>> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
>>> +
>>> + /*
On 2018/10/30 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> vma = remove_vma(vma);
>>> }
>>> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
>>> +
>>> + /*
On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > vma = remove_vma(vma);
> > }
> > vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* Now that the full address
On Tue 30-10-18 13:45:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > vma = remove_vma(vma);
> > }
> > vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* Now that the full address
Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> vma = remove_vma(vma);
> }
> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
> +
> + /*
> +* Now that the full address space is torn down, make sure the
> +* OOM killer skips
Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -3156,6 +3166,13 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> vma = remove_vma(vma);
> }
> vm_unacct_memory(nr_accounted);
> +
> + /*
> +* Now that the full address space is torn down, make sure the
> +* OOM killer skips
From: Michal Hocko
David Rientjes has noted that certain user space memory allocators leave
a lot of page tables behind and the current implementation of oom_reaper
doesn't deal with those workloads very well. In order to improve these
workloads define a point when exit_mmap is guaranteed to
From: Michal Hocko
David Rientjes has noted that certain user space memory allocators leave
a lot of page tables behind and the current implementation of oom_reaper
doesn't deal with those workloads very well. In order to improve these
workloads define a point when exit_mmap is guaranteed to
18 matches
Mail list logo
