On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:45:54 -0700
>> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>> > diff --git a/include/linux/ring_buffer.h b/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
>>> > index a0233edc0718..
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:39:24 -0700
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Yes I agree. So lets just do that and no other patches additional
> patches are needed then. Let me know if there's anything else I
> missed?
Yeah, I think there's really no other issue. I'm not going to apply
more patches.
>
> Also I
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:45:54 -0700
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/ring_buffer.h b/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
>> > index a0233edc0718..807e2bcb21b3 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
>> > ++
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:45:54 -0700
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ring_buffer.h b/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
> > index a0233edc0718..807e2bcb21b3 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ring_buffer.h
> > @@ -106,7 +106,8 @@ __poll_t ring_buffer_
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:36:25 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:27:06 +0200
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> > I would rather that the code outside of MM not touch implementation
>> > details like OOM_SCORE_AD
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:13:11 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Something like this:
Zhaoyang, would this work for you?
Then all you need to do is to:
echo 0 > /d/tracing/options/mem-reclaim
and then you have the old behavior before Joel's patch. It will use
NORETRY and also not set up the OOM to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:36:25 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:27:06 +0200
> Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > I would rather that the code outside of MM not touch implementation
> > details like OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN. It is really hard to get rid of abusers
> > whenever you try to chang
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:27:06 +0200
Michal Hocko wrote:
> I would rather that the code outside of MM not touch implementation
> details like OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN. It is really hard to get rid of abusers
> whenever you try to change something in MM then. Especially when the
> usecase is quite dubious.
On Tue 10-04-18 08:23:16, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:49:02 +0200
> Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > But you do realize that what you are proposing is by no means any safer,
> > don't you? The memory allocated for the ring buffer is _not_ accounted
> > to any process and as such it is
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:49:02 +0200
Michal Hocko wrote:
> But you do realize that what you are proposing is by no means any safer,
> don't you? The memory allocated for the ring buffer is _not_ accounted
> to any process and as such it is not considered by the oom killer when
> picking up an oom v
On Tue 10-04-18 17:32:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-04-18 16:38:32, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 10-04-18 16:38:32, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> > On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-04-18 16:38:32, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> > On Tue 10-04-18 1
On Tue 10-04-18 16:38:32, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > OOM_SCORE
On Tue 10-04-18 16:04:40, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >> > OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN means "hide the process from the OOM killer
> >> > c
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 10-04-18 11:41:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Steven Rostedt
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue,
On Tue 10-04-18 14:39:35, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 10-04-18 11:41:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Steven Rostedt
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800
> >> > Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-04-18 11:41:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800
>> > Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >
>> >> For bellowing scenario, process A have no intension to e
On Tue 10-04-18 11:41:44, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800
> > Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >
> >> For bellowing scenario, process A have no intension to exhaust the
> >> memory, but will be likely to be selected by
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800
> Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>
>> For bellowing scenario, process A have no intension to exhaust the
>> memory, but will be likely to be selected by OOM for we set
>> OOM_CORE_ADJ_MIN for it.
>> process A(-100
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:36 +0800
Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> For bellowing scenario, process A have no intension to exhaust the
> memory, but will be likely to be selected by OOM for we set
> OOM_CORE_ADJ_MIN for it.
> process A(-1000) process B
>
> i = s
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:56:01 +0800
>> Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>>
>>> >>
>>> >> if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
>>> >> points = ULONG_MAX;
>>> >> got
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:56:01 +0800
> Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
>> >> points = ULONG_MAX;
>> >> goto select;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> points = oom_badnes
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:56:01 +0800
Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >>
> >> if (oom_task_origin(task)) {
> >> points = ULONG_MAX;
> >> goto select;
> >> }
> >>
> >> points = oom_badness(task, NULL, oc->nodemask, oc->totalpages);
> >> if (!poin
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ Removing kernel-patch-test, because of annoying "moderator" messages ]
>
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:54:59 +0800
> Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:16:23 +0800
>> >
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 13:54:59 +0800
Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:16:23 +0800
> > Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >
> >> Don't choose the process with adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which
> >> over-allocating pages for ring buffers.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:16:23 +0800
> Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>
>> Don't choose the process with adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which
>> over-allocating pages for ring buffers.
>
> Why?
>
> -- Steve
because in oom_evaluate_task, the process with adj
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 10:16:23 +0800
Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> Don't choose the process with adj == OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN which
> over-allocating pages for ring buffers.
Why?
-- Steve
29 matches
Mail list logo
