Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-23 Thread Yasunori Goto
I tested this patch. It worked well. So, I fixed its description. Please apply. -- The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may remain. But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used. This

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-23 Thread Yasunori Goto
I tested this patch. It worked well. So, I fixed its description. Please apply. -- The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may remain. But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used. This

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-21 Thread Benjamin LaHaise
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:28:16PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > Ok. This is take 2. > Thanks for your comment. > > Signed-off-by: Yasunori Goto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Looks good. Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -ben -- "Time is of no importance, Mr.

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-21 Thread Benjamin LaHaise
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:28:16PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: Ok. This is take 2. Thanks for your comment. Signed-off-by: Yasunori Goto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks good. Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] -ben -- Time is of no importance, Mr. President, only

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Yasunori Goto
> > > read_lock(_lock); > > > > > > + if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2) > > > + panic("out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n"); > > > + > > > > Wouldn't it be safer to put the panic before the read_lock()? > > I agree. Otherwise the patch seem to be okay. Ok. This is

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > > > The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using > > cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free. > > But some people want failover by panic

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Benjamin LaHaise
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using > cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free. > But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used. > This patch makes new

[PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Yasunori Goto
The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free. But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used. This patch makes new setting for its request. This is not tested yet. But it would work. Please

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Benjamin LaHaise
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free. But some people want failover by panic ASAP even if they are used. This patch makes new setting for

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 08:43:56PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: The current panic_on_oom may not work if there is a process using cpusets/mempolicy, because other nodes' memory may still free. But some people want failover by panic ASAP even

Re: [PATCH] Make new setting of panic_on_oom

2007-04-20 Thread Yasunori Goto
read_lock(tasklist_lock); + if (sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2) + panic(out of memory. Compulsory panic_on_oom is selected.\n); + Wouldn't it be safer to put the panic before the read_lock()? I agree. Otherwise the patch seem to be okay. Ok. This is take 2. Thanks