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
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
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.
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
> > > 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo