On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access
> to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough
> to have one such process at the time.
>
> If we need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the
> memory reser
On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:11, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Oom killer should avoid unnecessary kills. To prevent them, during
> the tasks list traverse we check for task which was previously
> selected as oom victims. If there is such a task, new victim
> is not selected.
>
> This approach is sub-optimal (
The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
fast we want to try changing the frequency. This is currently done for
the legacy governors with help of min_sampling_rate.
At worst, we may end up setting the sampling rate to a value lower than
the rate at which frequency can b
Hi Yury,
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 06:49:43PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> This series enables aarch64 with ilp32 mode.
Thanks for putting this series together, I do appreciate the effort.
There are still some review comments coming in but I'm happy with how
the ABI looks now. I did some LTP testing
Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce
---
Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt
b/Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt
index 24196ce..1fe42a8 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt
+++ b/Docu
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
> fast we want to try changing the frequency. This is currently done for
> the legacy governors with help of min_sampling_rate.
>
> At worst, we may end up setting t
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:53:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access
> > to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough
> > to have one such process at the time.
> >
> > If we
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:52:20AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:40:28AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > @@ -992,6 +992,13 @@
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:36:35 +0200
Matteo Croce wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce
> ---
> Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt
> b/Documentation/networking/ipvlan.txt
> index 241
Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 06:52:20AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Oops, I misinterpreted. This is where a multithreaded OOM victim with or
> > without
> > the OOM reaper can get stuck forever. Think about a process with two
> > threads is
> > select
On 29-06-17, 20:01, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
> > fast we want to try changing the frequency. This is currently done for
> > the legacy governors with help of min_
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:04:25AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-06-17, 20:01, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
> > > fast we want to try changing the frequency.
On 30-06-17, 06:53, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:04:25AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 29-06-17, 20:01, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on
13 matches
Mail list logo
