From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
rientjes@google.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:19:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100126161952.ee267d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100127085355.f5306e78.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:53:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hardly anyone will know to enable
> > it so the feature won't get much testing and this binary decision
> > fractures the testing effort. It would be much better if we can get
> > everyone running the same code. I mean, if there are certain workloads
> > on certain machines with which the oom-killer doesn't behave correctly
> > then fix it!
> Yes, I think you're right. But "breaking current behaviro of our servers!"
> arguments kills all proposal to this area and this oom-killer or vmscan is
> a feature should be tested by real users. (I'll write fork-bomb detector
> and RSS based OOM again.)
Well don't break their servers then ;)
What I'm not understanding is: why is it not possible to improve the
behaviour on the affected machines without affecting the behaviour on
other machines?
What are these "servers" to which you refer? x86_32 servers, I assume
- the patch shouldn't affect 64-bit machines. Why don't they also want
this treatment and in what way does the patch "break" them?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
rientjes@google.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:19:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100126161952.ee267d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100127085355.f5306e78.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:53:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hardly anyone will know to enable
> > it so the feature won't get much testing and this binary decision
> > fractures the testing effort. It would be much better if we can get
> > everyone running the same code. I mean, if there are certain workloads
> > on certain machines with which the oom-killer doesn't behave correctly
> > then fix it!
> Yes, I think you're right. But "breaking current behaviro of our servers!"
> arguments kills all proposal to this area and this oom-killer or vmscan is
> a feature should be tested by real users. (I'll write fork-bomb detector
> and RSS based OOM again.)
Well don't break their servers then ;)
What I'm not understanding is: why is it not possible to improve the
behaviour on the affected machines without affecting the behaviour on
other machines?
What are these "servers" to which you refer? x86_32 servers, I assume
- the patch shouldn't affect 64-bit machines. Why don't they also want
this treatment and in what way does the patch "break" them?
--
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:[~2010-01-27 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-21 5:59 [PATCH] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-21 5:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-21 15:18 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-21 15:18 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-21 23:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-21 23:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 0:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-22 0:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-22 1:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 1:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-21 15:29 ` Balbir Singh
2010-01-21 15:29 ` Balbir Singh
2010-01-21 23:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-21 23:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 6:23 ` [PATCH v2] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 6:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 14:00 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-22 14:00 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-22 15:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 15:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-22 15:41 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-22 15:41 ` Minchan Kim
2010-01-25 6:15 ` [PATCH v3] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-25 6:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-26 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-26 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-26 23:53 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-26 23:53 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 0:19 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-01-27 0:19 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-27 0:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 0:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:32 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] sysctl clean up vm related variable declarations KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:32 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 8:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-28 8:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-28 10:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 10:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling v4 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 6:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 0:12 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 0:12 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 23:56 ` [PATCH v3] " David Rientjes
2010-01-27 23:56 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-28 0:16 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-28 0:16 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-28 0:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 0:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-28 0:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-28 0:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-29 0:25 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-29 0:25 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-29 0:35 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 0:35 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 0:57 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-29 0:57 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-29 11:03 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 11:03 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-30 12:33 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-30 12:59 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-30 12:59 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-30 17:30 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-30 17:45 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-30 17:45 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-30 18:17 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-27 23:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-27 23:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-26 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-26 23:16 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-26 23:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-26 23:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-27 23:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-27 23:40 ` David Rientjes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-01-29 16:11 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 16:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 16:21 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 16:21 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 16:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 16:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 16:30 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 16:30 ` Alan Cox
2010-01-29 16:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 16:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-01-29 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-29 21:07 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-30 12:46 ` Vedran Furač
2010-01-30 22:53 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-30 22:53 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-31 20:29 ` Vedran Furač
2010-02-01 10:33 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-01 10:33 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-01 0:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-01 0:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-01 10:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-01 10:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-29 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-29 21:11 ` David Rientjes
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=20100126161952.ee267d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.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.