Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-19 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 19-09-16 12:18:37, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > : For ages we have been relying on TIF_MEMDIE thread flag to mark OOM > : victims and then, among other things, to give these threads full > : access to memory reserves. There

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-19 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 19-09-16 12:18:37, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > : For ages we have been relying on TIF_MEMDIE thread flag to mark OOM > : victims and then, among other things, to give these threads full > : access to memory reserves. There

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-19 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-09-16 10:41:18, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > > >

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-19 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:15:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 15-09-16 10:41:18, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > > >

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-16 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 15-09-16 10:41:18, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > > The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't >

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-16 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 15-09-16 10:41:18, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > > The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't >

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-15 Thread Johannes Weiner
Hi Michal, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't > get to test it so it might be completely broken. > > The

Re: [RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-15 Thread Johannes Weiner
Hi Michal, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:51:00AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. > The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't > get to test it so it might be completely broken. > > The

[RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-01 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't get to test it so it might be completely broken. The primary point of this series is to get rid of TIF_MEMDIE finally. Recent changes in the

[RFC 0/4] mm, oom: get rid of TIF_MEMDIE

2016-09-01 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, this is an early RFC to see whether the approach I've taken is acceptable. The series is on top of the current mmotm tree (2016-08-31-16-06). I didn't get to test it so it might be completely broken. The primary point of this series is to get rid of TIF_MEMDIE finally. Recent changes in the