On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Seems like it was dropped from the patch somehow. It is intended to do
> > atomic_long_add(nr_pages) in mem_cgroup_charge_skmem() and
> > atomic_long_add(-nr_pages) mem_cgroup_uncharge_skmem().
> >
> > > I also doubt that global atomic variable ca
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:41:03PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > > @@ -2618,92 +2620,65 @@ static long memcg_oom_badness(struct mem_cgroup
> > > *memcg,
> > > if (nodemask && !node_isset(nid, *nodemask))
> > > continue;
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > @@ -2618,92 +2620,65 @@ static long memcg_oom_badness(struct mem_cgroup
> > *memcg,
> > if (nodemask && !node_isset(nid, *nodemask))
> > continue;
> >
> > - points += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid
Hello, David!
Overall I like this idea.
Some questions below.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:09PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> There are several downsides to the current implementation that compares
> the root mem cgroup with leaf mem cgroups for the cgroup-aware oom killer.
>
> For example, /p
There are several downsides to the current implementation that compares
the root mem cgroup with leaf mem cgroups for the cgroup-aware oom killer.
For example, /proc/pid/oom_score_adj is accounted for processes attached
to the root mem cgroup but not leaves. This leads to wild inconsistencies
tha
5 matches
Mail list logo