On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:18 -0700
>>> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>
Happy to try anything else, BTW when the
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:18 -0700
>> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>>> Happy to try anything else, BTW when the si_mem_available check
>>> enabled, this doesn't happen and the
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:18 -0700
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>> Happy to try anything else, BTW when the si_mem_available check
>> enabled, this doesn't happen and the buffer_size_kb write fails
>> normally without hurting anything
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-04-18 16:59:18, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > [..]
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, I agree with the new patch and i
On Wed 04-04-18 16:59:18, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [..]
> >>>
> >>> Also, I agree with the new patch and its nice idea to do that.
> >>
> >> Thanks, want to give it a
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:59:18 -0700
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Happy to try anything else, BTW when the si_mem_available check
> enabled, this doesn't happen and the buffer_size_kb write fails
> normally without hurting anything else.
Can you remove the RETRY_MAYFAIL and see if you can try again? It
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [..]
>>>
>>> Also, I agree with the new patch and its nice idea to do that.
>>
>> Thanks, want to give it a test too?
With the latest tree and the below diff, I can still OO
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
>>
>> Also, I agree with the new patch and its nice idea to do that.
>
> Thanks, want to give it a test too?
Sure, I'll try it in a few hours. I am thinking of trying some of the
memory pressure tools we have. Likely by noon or so once I
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 09:03:47 -0700
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > for the tests. Note, without this, I tried to allocate all memory
> > (bisecting it with allocations that failed and allocations that
> > succeeded), and couldn't trigger an OOM :-/
>
> I guess you need to have something *else* other
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:53:10 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> @@ -1162,35 +1163,60 @@ static int rb_check_pages(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu
>> *cpu_buffer)
>> static int __rb_allocate_pages(long nr_pages, struct list_head *pages, int
>> c
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:53:10 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> @@ -1162,35 +1163,60 @@ static int rb_check_pages(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu
> *cpu_buffer)
> static int __rb_allocate_pages(long nr_pages, struct list_head *pages, int
> cpu)
> {
> struct buffer_page *bpage, *tmp;
> + bool u
From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
As si_mem_available() can say there is enough memory even though the memory
available is not useable by the ring buffer, it is best to not kill innocent
applications because the ring buffer is taking up all the memory while it is
trying to allocate a great deal of
12 matches
Mail list logo
