[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201602042210.BCG18704.HOMFFJOStQFOLV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:10:54 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de, hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OOM detection rework v4
Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not sure we can fix these pathological loads where we hit the
> higher order depletion and there is a chance that one of the thousands
> tasks terminates in an unpredictable way which happens to race with the
> OOM killer.
When I hit this problem on Dec 24th, I didn't run thousands of tasks.
I think there were less than one hundred tasks in the system and only
a few tasks were running. Not a pathological load at all.
I'm running thousands of tasks only for increasing the possibility
in the reproducer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists