On Fri 22-06-18 19:40:54, 禹舟键 wrote:
> Hi Michal
> > You misunderstood my suggestion. Let me be more specific. Please
> > separate the whole new oom_constraint including its _usage_.
>
> Sorry for misunderstanding your words. I think you want me to separate
> enum oom_constraint and static const
On Fri 22-06-18 19:40:54, 禹舟键 wrote:
> Hi Michal
> > You misunderstood my suggestion. Let me be more specific. Please
> > separate the whole new oom_constraint including its _usage_.
>
> Sorry for misunderstanding your words. I think you want me to separate
> enum oom_constraint and static const
Hi Michal
> You misunderstood my suggestion. Let me be more specific. Please
> separate the whole new oom_constraint including its _usage_.
Sorry for misunderstanding your words. I think you want me to separate
enum oom_constraint and static const char * const
oom_constraint_text[] to two parts,
Hi Michal
> You misunderstood my suggestion. Let me be more specific. Please
> separate the whole new oom_constraint including its _usage_.
Sorry for misunderstanding your words. I think you want me to separate
enum oom_constraint and static const char * const
oom_constraint_text[] to two parts,
On Fri 22-06-18 17:33:12, 禹舟键 wrote:
> Hi Michal
> > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > index 6adac113e96d..5bed78d4bfb8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,20 @@ struct notifier_block;
> > struct mem_cgroup;
> > struct
On Fri 22-06-18 17:33:12, 禹舟键 wrote:
> Hi Michal
> > diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> > index 6adac113e96d..5bed78d4bfb8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,20 @@ struct notifier_block;
> > struct mem_cgroup;
> > struct
Hi Michal
> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> index 6adac113e96d..5bed78d4bfb8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,20 @@ struct notifier_block;
> struct mem_cgroup;
> struct task_struct;
>
> +enum oom_constraint {
> +
Hi Michal
> diff --git a/include/linux/oom.h b/include/linux/oom.h
> index 6adac113e96d..5bed78d4bfb8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/oom.h
> +++ b/include/linux/oom.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,20 @@ struct notifier_block;
> struct mem_cgroup;
> struct task_struct;
>
> +enum oom_constraint {
> +
On Fri 15-06-18 17:52:21, ufo19890...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: yuzhoujian
>
> Some users complains that system-wide oom report does not print memcg's
> name which contains the task killed by the oom-killer. The current system
> wide oom report prints the task's command, gfp_mask, order
On Fri 15-06-18 17:52:21, ufo19890...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: yuzhoujian
>
> Some users complains that system-wide oom report does not print memcg's
> name which contains the task killed by the oom-killer. The current system
> wide oom report prints the task's command, gfp_mask, order
From: yuzhoujian
Some users complains that system-wide oom report does not print memcg's
name which contains the task killed by the oom-killer. The current system
wide oom report prints the task's command, gfp_mask, order ,oom_score_adj
and shows the memory info, but misses some important
From: yuzhoujian
Some users complains that system-wide oom report does not print memcg's
name which contains the task killed by the oom-killer. The current system
wide oom report prints the task's command, gfp_mask, order ,oom_score_adj
and shows the memory info, but misses some important
12 matches
Mail list logo
