On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:44:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 16:24:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Or if you prefer I can post it separately?
>
> I've just tried to rebase relevant parts on top of the current mmotm
> tree and it needs some non-trivial updates. Would you
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:44:08PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 16:24:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Or if you prefer I can post it separately?
>
> I've just tried to rebase relevant parts on top of the current mmotm
> tree and it needs some non-trivial updates. Would you
On Wed 26-07-17 16:24:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> Or if you prefer I can post it separately?
I've just tried to rebase relevant parts on top of the current mmotm
tree and it needs some non-trivial updates. Would you mind if I post
those patches with you on CC? I really think that we shouldn't
On Wed 26-07-17 16:24:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> Or if you prefer I can post it separately?
I've just tried to rebase relevant parts on top of the current mmotm
tree and it needs some non-trivial updates. Would you mind if I post
those patches with you on CC? I really think that we shouldn't
On Wed 26-07-17 15:06:07, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> >
On Wed 26-07-17 15:06:07, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> >
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> >
> > WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> > - /* OOM
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> >
> > WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> > - /* OOM
On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>
> WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> - /* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
> - if
On Wed 26-07-17 14:27:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> @@ -656,13 +658,24 @@ static void mark_oom_victim(struct task_struct *tsk)
> struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>
> WARN_ON(oom_killer_disabled);
> - /* OOM killer might race with memcg OOM */
> - if
First, separate tsk_is_oom_victim() and TIF_MEMDIE flag checks:
let the first one indicate that a task is killed by the OOM killer,
and the second one indicate that a task has an access to the memory
reserves (with a hope to eliminate it later).
Second, set TIF_MEMDIE to all threads of an OOM
First, separate tsk_is_oom_victim() and TIF_MEMDIE flag checks:
let the first one indicate that a task is killed by the OOM killer,
and the second one indicate that a task has an access to the memory
reserves (with a hope to eliminate it later).
Second, set TIF_MEMDIE to all threads of an OOM
12 matches
Mail list logo
