On Tue 01-08-17 23:16:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Once we merge [1] then the oom victim wouldn't
> > need to get TIF_MEMDIE to access memory reserves.
> >
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727090357.3205-2-mho...@kernel.org
>
> False. We are not
On Tue 01-08-17 23:16:13, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Once we merge [1] then the oom victim wouldn't
> > need to get TIF_MEMDIE to access memory reserves.
> >
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727090357.3205-2-mho...@kernel.org
>
> False. We are not
Michal Hocko wrote:
> Once we merge [1] then the oom victim wouldn't
> need to get TIF_MEMDIE to access memory reserves.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727090357.3205-2-mho...@kernel.org
False. We are not setting oom_mm to all thread groups (!CLONE_THREAD) sharing
Michal Hocko wrote:
> Once we merge [1] then the oom victim wouldn't
> need to get TIF_MEMDIE to access memory reserves.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170727090357.3205-2-mho...@kernel.org
False. We are not setting oom_mm to all thread groups (!CLONE_THREAD) sharing
On Sat 29-07-17 13:31:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> @@ -806,6 +799,20 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> + /*
> + * It is possible that current thread fails to try allocation from
> + * memory reserves if the OOM
On Sat 29-07-17 13:31:44, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> @@ -806,6 +799,20 @@ static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task)
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> + /*
> + * It is possible that current thread fails to try allocation from
> + * memory reserves if the OOM
On Tue 01-08-17 19:46:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Is
> > > > something other than the LTP test affected to give this more priority?
> > > > Do we have other usecases where something mlocks the whole memory?
On Tue 01-08-17 19:46:38, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Is
> > > > something other than the LTP test affected to give this more priority?
> > > > Do we have other usecases where something mlocks the whole memory?
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Is
> > > something other than the LTP test affected to give this more priority?
> > > Do we have other usecases where something mlocks the whole memory?
> >
> > This panic was caused by 50 threads sharing
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Is
> > > something other than the LTP test affected to give this more priority?
> > > Do we have other usecases where something mlocks the whole memory?
> >
> > This panic was caused by 50 threads sharing
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-07-17 22:55:51, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > > > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-07-17 22:55:51, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > > > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to
On Fri 28-07-17 19:20:42, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
> On 7/28/2017 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >[CC linux-mm]
> >
> >On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >>was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
> >>
> >>Hi Michal,
> >>On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal
On Fri 28-07-17 19:20:42, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
> On 7/28/2017 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >[CC linux-mm]
> >
> >On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >>was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
> >>
> >>Hi Michal,
> >>On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal
On Fri 28-07-17 22:55:51, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to select a
> > > new
> > > OOM
On Fri 28-07-17 22:55:51, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to select a
> > > new
> > > OOM
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to select a new
> > OOM victim. If task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() did not
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() returning false due to
> > MMF_OOM_SKIP already set allowed each thread sharing that mm to select a new
> > OOM victim. If task_will_free_mem(current) in out_of_memory() did not
Hi Michal,
On 7/28/2017 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
[...]
With
Hi Michal,
On 7/28/2017 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
[...]
With
On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > 4578 is consuming memory as mlocked pages. But the OOM reaper cannot
> > > reclaim
> > > mlocked pages (i.e. can_madv_dontneed_vma() returns false due to
> > > VM_LOCKED), can it?
> >
> > You are absolutely right. I am
On Fri 28-07-17 22:15:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > 4578 is consuming memory as mlocked pages. But the OOM reaper cannot
> > > reclaim
> > > mlocked pages (i.e. can_madv_dontneed_vma() returns false due to
> > > VM_LOCKED), can it?
> >
> > You are absolutely right. I am
Hello Tetsuo Handa,
On 7/28/2017 6:29 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
(Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM,
Hello Tetsuo Handa,
On 7/28/2017 6:29 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
(Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM,
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 4578 is consuming memory as mlocked pages. But the OOM reaper cannot reclaim
> > mlocked pages (i.e. can_madv_dontneed_vma() returns false due to
> > VM_LOCKED), can it?
>
> You are absolutely right. I am pretty sure I've checked mlocked counter
> as the first thing but
Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 4578 is consuming memory as mlocked pages. But the OOM reaper cannot reclaim
> > mlocked pages (i.e. can_madv_dontneed_vma() returns false due to
> > VM_LOCKED), can it?
>
> You are absolutely right. I am pretty sure I've checked mlocked counter
> as the first thing but
On Fri 28-07-17 21:59:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> (Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
>
> On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC linux-mm]
> >
> > On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
> >>
> >> Hi Michal,
> >> On
On Fri 28-07-17 21:59:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> (Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
>
> On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC linux-mm]
> >
> > On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
> >>
> >> Hi Michal,
> >> On
(Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC linux-mm]
>
> On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>> On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09,
(Oops. Forgot to add CC.)
On 2017/07/28 21:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC linux-mm]
>
> On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
>> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>> On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09,
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
>
> Hi Michal,
> On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >[...]
> >>With 4.11.6 I was getting random kernel panics
[CC linux-mm]
On Fri 28-07-17 17:22:25, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
>
> Hi Michal,
> On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
> >[...]
> >>With 4.11.6 I was getting random kernel panics
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
[...]
With 4.11.6 I was getting random kernel panics (Out of memory - No process left
to kill),
when running LTP oom01 /oom02
was: Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: allow oom reaper to race with exit_mmap
Hi Michal,
On 7/27/2017 2:54 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-07-17 13:59:09, Manish Jaggi wrote:
[...]
With 4.11.6 I was getting random kernel panics (Out of memory - No process left
to kill),
when running LTP oom01 /oom02
34 matches
Mail list logo
