Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2019-01-08 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 08-01-19 05:58:41, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2019/01/07 23:38, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > Historically we have called mark_oom_victim only to the main task > > selected as the oom victim because oom victims have access to memory > > reserves and granting the access t

Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2019-01-07 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2019/01/07 23:38, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > Historically we have called mark_oom_victim only to the main task > selected as the oom victim because oom victims have access to memory > reserves and granting the access to all killed tasks could deplete > memory reserves very qu

[PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2019-01-07 Thread Michal Hocko
From: Michal Hocko Historically we have called mark_oom_victim only to the main task selected as the oom victim because oom victims have access to memory reserves and granting the access to all killed tasks could deplete memory reserves very quickly and cause even larger problems. Since only a p

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 22-10-18 19:56:49, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/22 19:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-10-18 18:42:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> On 2018/10/22 17:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2018/10/22 19:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-10-18 18:42:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> On 2018/10/22 17:48, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: Michal Hocko wrote: > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void _

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 22-10-18 18:42:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/22 17:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > >>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > >>> @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct > >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2018/10/22 17:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Michal Hocko wrote: >>> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c >>> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c >>> @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct >>> *victim) >>> if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 22-10-18 16:58:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct > > *victim) > > if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) > > continue; > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Michal Hocko wrote: > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *victim) > if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) > continue; > do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, PIDTY

[RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks all killed tasks as oom victims

2018-10-22 Thread Michal Hocko
From: Michal Hocko Historically we have called mark_oom_victim only to the main task selected as the oom victim because oom victims have access to memory reserves and granting the access to all killed tasks could deplete memory reserves very quickly and cause even larger problems. Since only a p