[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705171026590.9487@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 10:27:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] mm, page_alloc: fix more premature OOM due to race
with cpuset update
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The race is where? If you expand the node set during the move of the
> > application then you are safe in terms of the legacy apps that did not
> > include static bindings.
>
> I am pretty sure it is describe in those changelogs and I won't repeat
> it here.
I cannot figure out what you are referring to. There are numerous
patches and discussions about OOM scenarios in this context.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists