On Tue 14-04-15 06:36:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > AFAIU, David wasn't asking for the OOM killer as much as he was
> > interested in getting access to a small amount of reserves in order to
> > make a progress. __GFP_HIGH is
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for a late reply]
>
> On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at
On Tue 14-04-15 10:11:18, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [Sorry for a late reply]
> >
> > On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > My question here would be:
On Tue 14-04-15 10:11:18, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
My question here would be: are there any
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400,
On Tue 14-04-15 06:36:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
AFAIU, David wasn't asking for the OOM killer as much as he was
interested in getting access to a small amount of reserves in order to
make a progress. __GFP_HIGH is there
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Sorry for a late reply]
>
> On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > My question here would be: are there any NOFS allocations that *don't*
> > want this
On Sat 11-04-15 16:29:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > The argument here was always that NOFS allocations are very limited in
> > their reclaim powers and will trigger OOM prematurely. However, the
> > way we limit dirty memory these days forces most cache to be clean at
> >
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > GFP_NOFS sites are
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:46:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
My question here would be: are there any NOFS allocations that *don't*
want this behavior?
On Sat 11-04-15 16:29:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Johannes Weiner wrote:
The argument here was always that NOFS allocations are very limited in
their reclaim powers and will trigger OOM prematurely. However, the
way we limit dirty memory these days forces most cache to be clean at
all times,
[Sorry for a late reply]
On Tue 07-04-15 10:18:22, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The argument here was always that NOFS allocations are very limited in
> their reclaim powers and will trigger OOM prematurely. However, the
> way we limit dirty memory these days forces most cache to be clean at
> all times, and direct reclaim in general hasn't been
Johannes Weiner wrote:
The argument here was always that NOFS allocations are very limited in
their reclaim powers and will trigger OOM prematurely. However, the
way we limit dirty memory these days forces most cache to be clean at
all times, and direct reclaim in general hasn't been allowed
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
> > > the allocator, even though
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
the allocator, even though many of
On Thu 02-04-15 08:39:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites
On Thu 02-04-15 08:39:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
> > > the allocator, even though
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
> > the allocator, even though many of them seem to have fallback code.
> > My reasoning here is that if
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
the allocator, even though many of them seem to have fallback code.
My reasoning here is that if you
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 30-03-15 11:32:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
the allocator, even though many of
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32:40AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
> > the allocator, even though many of them seem to have fallback code.
> > My reasoning here
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32:40AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
GFP_NOFS sites are currently one of the sites that can deadlock inside
the allocator, even though many of them seem to have fallback code.
My reasoning here is that
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:58:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:05:09AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:58:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi everybody,
in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
deal
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:58:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
> > deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
> >
> >
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:58:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi everybody,
in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
The idea of
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
> deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
>
> The idea of this series is mainly to make the mechanism of detecting
> OOM
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:17:04AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi everybody,
in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
The idea of this series is mainly to make the mechanism of detecting
OOM
Hi everybody,
in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
The idea of this series is mainly to make the mechanism of detecting
OOM situations reliable enough that we can be confident about failing
allocations,
Hi everybody,
in the recent past we've had several reports and discussions on how to
deal with allocations hanging in the allocator upon OOM.
The idea of this series is mainly to make the mechanism of detecting
OOM situations reliable enough that we can be confident about failing
allocations,
32 matches
Mail list logo
