On Fri 19-10-12 12:11:52, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 11:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> >>On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
On Fri 19-10-12 12:11:52, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 10/18/2012 11:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hockomho...@suse.cz wrote:
On 10/18/2012 11:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the motivation for
On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >[...]
> >>>Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
> >>>"let's be
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
"let's be consistent with the global oom" or you have a real use case
for
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
> > "let's be consistent with the global oom" or you have a real use case
> > for this knob.
> >
>
> In our
On 10/18/2012 11:32 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hockomho...@suse.cz wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
let's be consistent with the global oom or you have a real use case
for this knob.
In our
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hockomho...@suse.cz wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
let's be consistent with the global oom or you have a real use
On Thu 18-10-12 21:51:57, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 10/18/2012 07:56 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 01:14:48, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Michal Hockomho...@suse.cz wrote:
[...]
Could you be more specific about the motivation for this patch? Is it
let's be
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index e4e9b18..c329940 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1486,6 +1486,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup
> *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>
>
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The primary motivation for oom_kill_allocating_task AFAIU was to reduce
> search over huge tasklists and reduce task_lock holding times. I am not
> sure whether the original concern is still valid since 6b0c81b (mm,
> oom: reduce dependency on
On Tue 16-10-12 18:12:08, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> From: Sha Zhengju
>
> Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
> task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide
> oom.
> But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into
On 10/16/2012 06:20 PM, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
On 10/16/2012 06:12 PM, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the
OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall
system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful
On 10/16/2012 06:12 PM, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into
From: Sha Zhengju
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into consideration
while oom happening in memcg. Other sysctl
On Tue 16-10-12 14:32:05, Sha Zhengju wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for reminding! Yes, I cooked it on memcg-devel git repo but
> a out-of-date
> since-3.2 branch... But I notice the latest branch is since-3.5(not
> seeing 3.6/3.7), does
> it okay to working on this branch?
The tree has moved to
On 10/16/2012 02:12 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful
From: Sha Zhengju
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into consideration
while oom happening in memcg. Other sysctl
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> From: Sha Zhengju
>
> Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
> task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide
> oom.
> But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide
oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into consideration
while oom happening in
On 10/16/2012 02:12 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengjuhandai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's
On Tue 16-10-12 14:32:05, Sha Zhengju wrote:
[...]
Thanks for reminding! Yes, I cooked it on memcg-devel git repo but
a out-of-date
since-3.2 branch... But I notice the latest branch is since-3.5(not
seeing 3.6/3.7), does
it okay to working on this branch?
The tree has moved to
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take it into consideration
while oom happening in
On 10/16/2012 06:12 PM, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so we take
On 10/16/2012 06:20 PM, Ni zhan Chen wrote:
On 10/16/2012 06:12 PM, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the
OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall
system-wide oom.
But
On Tue 16-10-12 18:12:08, Sha Zhengju wrote:
From: Sha Zhengju handai@taobao.com
Sysctl oom_kill_allocating_task enables or disables killing the OOM-triggering
task in out-of-memory situations, but it only works on overall system-wide
oom.
But it's also a useful indication in memcg so
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
The primary motivation for oom_kill_allocating_task AFAIU was to reduce
search over huge tasklists and reduce task_lock holding times. I am not
sure whether the original concern is still valid since 6b0c81b (mm,
oom: reduce dependency on tasklist_lock)
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Sha Zhengju wrote:
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index e4e9b18..c329940 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1486,6 +1486,15 @@ static void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup
*memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
30 matches
Mail list logo
