On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 10:03 -0700, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> The bug is in the patch that used sched_setscheduler_nocheck(). Plain
> sched_setscheduler() would have replied -EGOAWAY.
sched_setscheduler_nocheck() should say go away too methinks. This
isn't about permissions, it's about not being s
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 10:42 +0800, Qiang Gao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 24-10-12 11:44:17, Qiang Gao wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Balbir Singh
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> >> On Tue 23
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-10-12 11:44:17, Qiang Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> On Tue 23-10-12 18:10:33, Qiang Gao wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50
On Wed 24-10-12 11:44:17, Qiang Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 23-10-12 18:10:33, Qiang Gao wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> > On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 23-10-12 18:10:33, Qiang Gao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> > On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48, Qiang Gao wrote:
>>> >> This process was moved to RT-
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-10-12 18:10:33, Qiang Gao wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48, Qiang Gao wrote:
>> >> This process was moved to RT-priority queue when global oom-killer
>> >> happened to boos
On Tue 23-10-12 18:10:33, Qiang Gao wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48, Qiang Gao wrote:
> >> This process was moved to RT-priority queue when global oom-killer
> >> happened to boost the recovery of the system..
> >
> > Who did that? oom kil
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48, Qiang Gao wrote:
>> This process was moved to RT-priority queue when global oom-killer
>> happened to boost the recovery of the system..
>
> Who did that? oom killer doesn't boost the priority (scheduling class)
> AFA
On Tue 23-10-12 15:18:48, Qiang Gao wrote:
> This process was moved to RT-priority queue when global oom-killer
> happened to boost the recovery of the system..
Who did that? oom killer doesn't boost the priority (scheduling class)
AFAIK.
> but it wasn't get properily dealt with. I still have no
On Tue 23-10-12 17:08:40, Qiang Gao wrote:
> this is just an example to show how to reproduce. actually,the first time I
> saw
> this situation was on a machine with 288G RAM with many tasks running and
> we limit 30G for each. but finanlly, no one exceeds this limit the the system
> oom.
Yes bu
global-oom is the right thing to do. but oom-killed-process hanging on
do_exit is not the normal behavior
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 11:35 AM, Qiang Gao wrote:
>>
>> information about the system is in the attach file "information.txt"
>>
>> I can not repro
this is just an example to show how to reproduce. actually,the first time I saw
this situation was on a machine with 288G RAM with many tasks running and
we limit 30G for each. but finanlly, no one exceeds this limit the the system
oom.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On
On 10/23/2012 11:35 AM, Qiang Gao wrote:
information about the system is in the attach file "information.txt"
I can not reproduce it in the upstream 3.6.0 kernel..
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 17-10-12 18:23:34, gaoqiang wrote:
I looked up nothing useful with
On Tue 23-10-12 11:35:52, Qiang Gao wrote:
> I'm sure this is a global-oom,not cgroup-oom. [the dmesg output in the end]
Yes this is the global oom killer because:
> cglimit -M 700M ./tt
> then after global-oom,the process hangs..
> 179184 pages RAM
So you have ~700M of RAM so the memcg limit i
This process was moved to RT-priority queue when global oom-killer
happened to boost the recovery
of the system.. but it wasn't get properily dealt with. I still have
no idea why where the problem is ..
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Qiang
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Qiang Gao wrote:
> information about the system is in the attach file "information.txt"
>
> I can not reproduce it in the upstream 3.6.0 kernel..
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 17-10-12 18:23:34, gaoqiang wrote:
>>> I looked up
On Mon 22-10-12 10:16:43, Qiang Gao wrote:
> I don't know whether the process will exit finally, bug this stack lasts
> for hours, which is obviously unnormal.
> The situation: we use a command calld "cglimit" to fork-and-exec the
> worker process,and the "cglimit" will
> set some limitation on t
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Qiang Gao wrote:
> I don't know whether the process will exit finally, bug this stack lasts
> for hours, which is obviously unnormal.
> The situation: we use a command calld "cglimit" to fork-and-exec the worker
> process,and the "cglimit" will
> set some limitat
I don't know whether the process will exit finally, bug this stack
lasts for hours, which is obviously unnormal.
The situation: we use a command calld "cglimit" to fork-and-exec the
worker process,and the "cglimit" will
set some limitation on the worker with cgroup. for now,we limit the
memory,an
On Wed 17-10-12 18:23:34, gaoqiang wrote:
> I looked up nothing useful with google,so I'm here for help..
>
> when this happens: I use memcg to limit the memory use of a
> process,and when the memcg cgroup was out of memory,
> the process was oom-killed however,it cannot really complete the
> e
I looked up nothing useful with google,so I'm here for help..
when this happens: I use memcg to limit the memory use of a process,and
when the memcg cgroup was out of memory,
the process was oom-killed however,it cannot really complete the
exiting. here is the some information
OS versio
21 matches
Mail list logo
