Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1677536 > unrolled thread

Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with TIF_MEMDIE

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with  TIF_MEMDIE Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-29 11:00 +0200
    Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with  TIF_MEMDIE Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-30 10:30 +0200

#1677536 — Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with TIF_MEMDIE

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 reserves only to the first process in the list, which is
> (usually) the biggest process.
> This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able
> to quit without an access to the memory reserves.

I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced
memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]?

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1678593

On Thu 29-06-17 14:45:13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 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 need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the
> > > memory reserves only to the first process in the list, which is
> > > (usually) the biggest process.
> > > This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able
> > > to quit without an access to the memory reserves.
> > 
> > I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced
> > memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]?
> > 
> > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org
> 
> I've nothing against your approach. What's the state of this patchset?
> Do you plan to bring it upstream?

Just the specific patch I have linked should be sufficient for what you
need here. The patchset had some issues which I didn't have time to fix
and as such the need for the above patch was not a high priority as
well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web