From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:26:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715212657.aa85089a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A5EA7E1.7030403@redhat.com>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:09:05 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
> > we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
> > dunno.
>
> Good point - what is it that makes TIF_MEMDIE special
> wrt. other fatal signals, anyway?
>
> I wonder if we should not simply "help along" any task
> with fatal signals pending, anywhere in the VM (and maybe
> other places in the kernel, too).
>
> The faster we get rid of a killed process, the sooner its
> resources become available to the other processes.
Spose so.
Are their any known (or makeable uppable) situations in which such a
change would be beneficial? Maybe if the system is in a hopeless
swapstorm and someone is killing processes in an attempt to get control
back.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:26:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715212657.aa85089a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A5EA7E1.7030403@redhat.com>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:09:05 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
> > we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
> > dunno.
>
> Good point - what is it that makes TIF_MEMDIE special
> wrt. other fatal signals, anyway?
>
> I wonder if we should not simply "help along" any task
> with fatal signals pending, anywhere in the VM (and maybe
> other places in the kernel, too).
>
> The faster we get rid of a killed process, the sooner its
> resources become available to the other processes.
Spose so.
Are their any known (or makeable uppable) situations in which such a
change would be beneficial? Maybe if the system is in a hopeless
swapstorm and someone is killing processes in an attempt to get control
back.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-16 4:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-16 2:38 [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 2:38 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 2:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 2:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:10 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:10 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:28 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:28 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:38 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:38 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:51 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:51 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:53 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:02 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 4:02 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 4:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:26 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-16 4:26 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 15:04 ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 15:04 ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 16:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-29 16:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:36 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v2) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:36 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:19 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:32 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:32 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:47 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090715212657.aa85089a.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.