On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:11:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 11-04-19 15:14:30, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 08:12:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 11-04-19 12:18:33, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
On Thu 11-04-19 12:56:32, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:19 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > > > speed sounds like a fundamental
On Thu 11-04-19 15:14:30, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 08:12:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 11-04-19 12:18:33, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:19 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > > on it.
> >
> > Rely
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 08:12:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 11-04-19 12:18:33, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thr
On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
[...]
> > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > on it.
>
> Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation
>
On Thu 11-04-19 12:18:33, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thread to increase memory
> > > reclaim rate of a killed process and to make
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:51:11PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> on it. Sure task exit might be slow, but async mm tear down is just a
> mere optimizati
Thanks for the feedback!
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thread to increase memory
> > reclaim rate of a killed process and to make this rate more deterministic.
> >
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:51:11PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thread to increase memory
> > reclaim rate of a killed process and to make this rate more deterministic.
> > By no means the pro
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:51 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thread to increase memory
> > reclaim rate of a killed process and to make this rate more deterministic.
> > By no means the proposed s
On Wed 10-04-19 18:43:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
[...]
> Proposed solution uses existing oom-reaper thread to increase memory
> reclaim rate of a killed process and to make this rate more deterministic.
> By no means the proposed solution is considered the best and was chosen
> because it was si
12 matches
Mail list logo
