[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201603112232.AEJ78150.LOHQJtMFSVOFOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:32:02 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de, rientjes@...gle.com,
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:
> On Fri 11-03-16 19:45:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > (Posting as a reply to this thread.)
>
> I really do not see how this is related to this thread.
All allocating tasks are looping at
/*
* If we didn't make any progress and have a lot of
* dirty + writeback pages then we should wait for
* an IO to complete to slow down the reclaim and
* prevent from pre mature OOM
*/
if (!did_some_progress && 2*(writeback + dirty) > reclaimable) {
congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
return true;
}
in should_reclaim_retry().
should_reclaim_retry() was added by OOM detection rework, wan't it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists