[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ75kXbFfPcEQ5z8GQiZUJBSp+WA5n1BQhERGNky_CX3-AYtRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:28:33 +0100
From: William Dauchy <wdauchy@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] initial while_each_thread() fixes
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Before this patch, I was testing this one
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/13/336
>
> perhaps this patch makes more sense for stable.
I guess we should consider it.
> But, to clarify just in case, it is not needed after this series.
>
>> which is fixing my oom issues.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't fix all problems even in mm/oom_kill.c, and
> we need to fix while_each_thread() anyway.
>
>> I applied the two patches on top of a 3.10.x and got some tasks
>> stalled after the first OOM:
>
> So you are saying that this was introduced by this series?
yes, without thse two patches I can't reproduce my issue.
> Could you retest with the recent kernel?
I'll see if I find time for it; will keep you up to date.
Thanks,
--
William
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists