How is this different from RLIMIT_AS? You specifically mentioned it
earlier but you don't explain how this is different.
>From my perspective, this is pointless. There's plenty of perfectly
correct software that mmaps files without concern for VSIZE, because
they never fault most of those pages
The immediate problem I see with setting aside reserves "off the top"
is that we don't really know a priori how much memory the kernel
itself is going to use, which could still land us in an overcommitted
state.
In other words, if I have your 128 MB machine, and I set aside 8 MB
for OOM handling,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:58:34AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
>> Another reason unified hierarchy is a bad model.
>
> Things wrong with this message.
>
> 1. Top posted. It isn't clear which part you're referring t
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 06:49, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 02:08:09PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>>>
>>> The current state of resource limitation for the number of open
>>> processes (as well as the number of open
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:42:10AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> Kernel memory consumption isn't the only valid reason to want to limit the
>> number of processes in a cgroup. Limiting the number of processes is very
>> useful
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:25:10AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
>> > In general, I'm pretty strongly against adding controllers for things
>> > which aren't fundamental resources in the system. What's next? Op
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:48:12AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > I am sorry that real-user problems are not perceived as substantial. This
> > was/is a real issue for us. Being in limbo for years on end might not be a
> &
On Feb 28, 2015 2:50 PM, "Tejun Heo" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 02:26:58PM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > Wow, so much anger. I'm not even sure how to respond, so I'll just
> > say this and sign off. All I want is a better, friendlier, more
>
In the example above:
root
/\
A D
/ \
B C
Does oom_group allow me to express "compare A and D; if A is chosen
compare B and C; kill the loser" ? As I understand the proposal (from
reading thread, not patch) it does not.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mich
I'm excited to see this being discussed again - it's been years since
the last attempt. I've tried to stay out of the conversation, but I
feel obligated say something and then go back to lurking.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:30:40PM +0200,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 26-09-17 20:37:37, Tim Hockin wrote:
> [...]
>> I feel like David has offered examples here, and many of us at Google
>> have offered examples as long ago as 2013 (if I recall) of cases where
>> the proposed he
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:35:50AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Tue 26-09-17 20:37:37, Tim Hockin wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> I feel like David
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
