On Sat 12-01-19 19:52:50, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/12 1:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> Anyway, could you update your patch and abstract
> >>> if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current) ||
> >>>fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
> >>>current->flags & PF_EXITING))
On 2019/01/12 1:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Anyway, could you update your patch and abstract
>>> if (unlikely(tsk_is_oom_victim(current) ||
>>> fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
>>> current->flags & PF_EXITING))
>>>
>>> in try_charge and reuse it in mem_cgroup_
On Sat 12-01-19 00:37:05, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/12 0:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 11-01-19 23:31:18, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> The OOM killer invoked by [ T9694] called printk() but didn't kill
> >> anything.
> >> Instead, SIGINT from Ctrl-C killed all thread groups sharing current
On 2019/01/12 0:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 11-01-19 23:31:18, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> The OOM killer invoked by [ T9694] called printk() but didn't kill anything.
>> Instead, SIGINT from Ctrl-C killed all thread groups sharing current->mm.
>
> I still do not get it. Those other processes are
On Fri 11-01-19 23:31:18, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/11 22:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 11-01-19 21:40:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Did you notice that there is no
> >>
> >> "Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB,
> >> shmem-rss:%lukB\n"
> >>
On 2019/01/11 22:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 11-01-19 21:40:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> [...]
>> Did you notice that there is no
>>
>> "Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB,
>> shmem-rss:%lukB\n"
>>
>> line between
>>
>> [ 71.304703][ T9694] Memory cgroup
On Fri 11-01-19 21:40:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> Did you notice that there is no
>
> "Killed process %d (%s) total-vm:%lukB, anon-rss:%lukB, file-rss:%lukB,
> shmem-rss:%lukB\n"
>
> line between
>
> [ 71.304703][ T9694] Memory cgroup out of memory: Kill process 9692
> (a.out) score
On 2019/01/11 20:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 11-01-19 19:25:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2019/01/11 8:59, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 09-01-19 20:34:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Tetsuo,
>> can you confirm that th
On Fri 11-01-19 19:25:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/11 8:59, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 09-01-19 20:34:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >>> On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Tetsuo,
> can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you hav
On 2019/01/11 8:59, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 09-01-19 20:34:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
Tetsuo,
can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you have
reported please?
>>>
>>> My patch fixes the is
Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 09-01-19 20:34:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Tetsuo,
> > > can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you have
> > > reported please?
> > >
> >
> > My patch fixes the issue better than your "[PATCH 2/2] mem
On Wed 09-01-19 20:34:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Tetsuo,
> > can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you have
> > reported please?
> >
>
> My patch fixes the issue better than your "[PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not
> report racy no-eligible
On 2019/01/09 20:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Tetsuo,
> can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you have
> reported please?
>
My patch fixes the issue better than your "[PATCH 2/2] memcg: do not report
racy no-eligible OOM tasks" does.
You can post "[PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: marks a
Tetsuo,
can you confirm that these two patches are fixing the issue you have
reported please?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
14 matches
Mail list logo
