All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/3] mm, memcg: introduce own oom handler to iterate only over its own threads
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:43:47 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271837460.14446@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206262229380.32567@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, David Rientjes wrote:

> It turns out that task->children is not an rcu-protected list so this 
> doesn't work.  Both (1) and (3) can be accomplished with 
> rcu_read_{lock,unlock}() that can nest inside the tasklist_lock for the 
> global oom killer.  (We could even split the global oom killer tasklist 
> locking and optimize it seperately from this patchset.)
> 
> So we have a couple of options:
> 
>  - allow oom_kill_process() to do
> 
> 	if (memcg)
> 		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> 	...
> 	if (memcg)
> 		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
>    around the iteration over the victim's children.  This should solve the 
>    issue since any other iteration over the entire tasklist would have 
>    triggered the same starvation if it were that bad, or
> 
>  - suppress the iteration for memcg ooms and just kill the parent instead.
> 

Adding Oleg for comment as well.

I did the first option but I split tasklist_lock for global oom conditions 
as well.  The only place we actually need it is when iterating the 
victim's children since that list is not rcu-protected.  If this happens 
to be too painful for parallel memcg ooms then we can look to protecting 
it, but it shouldn't be a problem for global ooms because of the global 
oom killer's zonelist serialization.

It's a tough patch to review, but the basics are that

 - oom_kill_process() is made to no longer need tasklist_lock; it's only
   taken for the iteration over children and everything else, including
   dump_header() is protected by rcu_read_lock() for kernels enabling
   /proc/sys/vm/oom_dump_tasks,

 - oom_kill_process() assumes that we have a reference to p, the victim,
   when it's called.  It can release this reference and grab a child's
   reference if necessary and drops it before returning, and

 - select_bad_process() does not require tasklist_lock, it gets
   protected by rcu_read_lock() as well.

Comments?

 memcontrol.c |    2 --
 oom_kill.c   |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1522,10 +1522,8 @@ void __mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	if (!chosen)
 		return;
 	points = chosen_points * 1000 / totalpages;
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	oom_kill_process(chosen, gfp_mask, order, points, totalpages, memcg,
 			 NULL, "Memory cgroup out of memory");
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	put_task_struct(chosen);
 }
 
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct task_struct *task,
 
 /*
  * Simple selection loop. We chose the process with the highest
- * number of 'points'. We expect the caller will lock the tasklist.
+ * number of 'points'.
  *
  * (not docbooked, we don't want this one cluttering up the manual)
  */
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
 	struct task_struct *chosen = NULL;
 	unsigned long chosen_points = 0;
 
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	do_each_thread(g, p) {
 		unsigned int points;
 
@@ -370,6 +371,9 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
 			chosen_points = points;
 		}
 	} while_each_thread(g, p);
+	if (chosen)
+		get_task_struct(chosen);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	*ppoints = chosen_points * 1000 / totalpages;
 	return chosen;
@@ -385,8 +389,6 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
  * are not shown.
  * State information includes task's pid, uid, tgid, vm size, rss, cpu, oom_adj
  * value, oom_score_adj value, and name.
- *
- * Call with tasklist_lock read-locked.
  */
 static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemask)
 {
@@ -394,6 +396,7 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemas
 	struct task_struct *task;
 
 	pr_info("[ pid ]   uid  tgid total_vm      rss cpu oom_adj oom_score_adj name\n");
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_process(p) {
 		if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask))
 			continue;
@@ -415,6 +418,7 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemas
 			task->signal->oom_score_adj, task->comm);
 		task_unlock(task);
 	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
 static void dump_header(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
@@ -454,6 +458,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 */
 	if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
 		set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
+		put_task_struct(p);
 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -471,6 +476,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 * parent.  This attempts to lose the minimal amount of work done while
 	 * still freeing memory.
 	 */
+	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	do {
 		list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
 			unsigned int child_points;
@@ -483,15 +489,23 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			child_points = oom_badness(child, memcg, nodemask,
 								totalpages);
 			if (child_points > victim_points) {
+				put_task_struct(victim);
 				victim = child;
 				victim_points = child_points;
+				get_task_struct(victim);
 			}
 		}
 	} while_each_thread(p, t);
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
-	victim = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
-	if (!victim)
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
+	if (!p) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		put_task_struct(victim);
 		return;
+	} else
+		victim = p;
 
 	/* mm cannot safely be dereferenced after task_unlock(victim) */
 	mm = victim->mm;
@@ -522,9 +536,11 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			task_unlock(p);
 			do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
 		}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	set_tsk_thread_flag(victim, TIF_MEMDIE);
 	do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, victim, true);
+	put_task_struct(victim);
 }
 #undef K
 
@@ -545,9 +561,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(enum oom_constraint constraint, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 		if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
 			return;
 	}
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL, nodemask);
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	panic("Out of memory: %s panic_on_oom is enabled\n",
 		sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2 ? "compulsory" : "system-wide");
 }
@@ -720,10 +734,10 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	mpol_mask = (constraint == CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY) ? nodemask : NULL;
 	check_panic_on_oom(constraint, gfp_mask, order, mpol_mask);
 
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	if (sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
 	    !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, nodemask) &&
 	    current->mm) {
+		get_task_struct(current);
 		oom_kill_process(current, gfp_mask, order, 0, totalpages, NULL,
 				 nodemask,
 				 "Out of memory (oom_kill_allocating_task)");
@@ -734,7 +748,6 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
 	if (!p) {
 		dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL, mpol_mask);
-		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
 	}
 	if (PTR_ERR(p) != -1UL) {
@@ -743,8 +756,6 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 		killed = 1;
 	}
 out:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-
 	/*
 	 * Give "p" a good chance of killing itself before we
 	 * retry to allocate memory unless "p" is current

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki
	<kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro
	<kosaki.motohiro-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/3] mm, memcg: introduce own oom handler to iterate only over its own threads
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:43:47 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271837460.14446@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206262229380.32567-X6Q0R45D7oAcqpCFd4KODRPsWskHk0ljAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, David Rientjes wrote:

> It turns out that task->children is not an rcu-protected list so this 
> doesn't work.  Both (1) and (3) can be accomplished with 
> rcu_read_{lock,unlock}() that can nest inside the tasklist_lock for the 
> global oom killer.  (We could even split the global oom killer tasklist 
> locking and optimize it seperately from this patchset.)
> 
> So we have a couple of options:
> 
>  - allow oom_kill_process() to do
> 
> 	if (memcg)
> 		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> 	...
> 	if (memcg)
> 		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
>    around the iteration over the victim's children.  This should solve the 
>    issue since any other iteration over the entire tasklist would have 
>    triggered the same starvation if it were that bad, or
> 
>  - suppress the iteration for memcg ooms and just kill the parent instead.
> 

Adding Oleg for comment as well.

I did the first option but I split tasklist_lock for global oom conditions 
as well.  The only place we actually need it is when iterating the 
victim's children since that list is not rcu-protected.  If this happens 
to be too painful for parallel memcg ooms then we can look to protecting 
it, but it shouldn't be a problem for global ooms because of the global 
oom killer's zonelist serialization.

It's a tough patch to review, but the basics are that

 - oom_kill_process() is made to no longer need tasklist_lock; it's only
   taken for the iteration over children and everything else, including
   dump_header() is protected by rcu_read_lock() for kernels enabling
   /proc/sys/vm/oom_dump_tasks,

 - oom_kill_process() assumes that we have a reference to p, the victim,
   when it's called.  It can release this reference and grab a child's
   reference if necessary and drops it before returning, and

 - select_bad_process() does not require tasklist_lock, it gets
   protected by rcu_read_lock() as well.

Comments?

 memcontrol.c |    2 --
 oom_kill.c   |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1522,10 +1522,8 @@ void __mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	if (!chosen)
 		return;
 	points = chosen_points * 1000 / totalpages;
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	oom_kill_process(chosen, gfp_mask, order, points, totalpages, memcg,
 			 NULL, "Memory cgroup out of memory");
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	put_task_struct(chosen);
 }
 
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ enum oom_scan_t oom_scan_process_thread(struct task_struct *task,
 
 /*
  * Simple selection loop. We chose the process with the highest
- * number of 'points'. We expect the caller will lock the tasklist.
+ * number of 'points'.
  *
  * (not docbooked, we don't want this one cluttering up the manual)
  */
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
 	struct task_struct *chosen = NULL;
 	unsigned long chosen_points = 0;
 
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	do_each_thread(g, p) {
 		unsigned int points;
 
@@ -370,6 +371,9 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
 			chosen_points = points;
 		}
 	} while_each_thread(g, p);
+	if (chosen)
+		get_task_struct(chosen);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	*ppoints = chosen_points * 1000 / totalpages;
 	return chosen;
@@ -385,8 +389,6 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned int *ppoints,
  * are not shown.
  * State information includes task's pid, uid, tgid, vm size, rss, cpu, oom_adj
  * value, oom_score_adj value, and name.
- *
- * Call with tasklist_lock read-locked.
  */
 static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemask)
 {
@@ -394,6 +396,7 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemas
 	struct task_struct *task;
 
 	pr_info("[ pid ]   uid  tgid total_vm      rss cpu oom_adj oom_score_adj name\n");
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_process(p) {
 		if (oom_unkillable_task(p, memcg, nodemask))
 			continue;
@@ -415,6 +418,7 @@ static void dump_tasks(const struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const nodemask_t *nodemas
 			task->signal->oom_score_adj, task->comm);
 		task_unlock(task);
 	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
 static void dump_header(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
@@ -454,6 +458,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 */
 	if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
 		set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
+		put_task_struct(p);
 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -471,6 +476,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 * parent.  This attempts to lose the minimal amount of work done while
 	 * still freeing memory.
 	 */
+	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	do {
 		list_for_each_entry(child, &t->children, sibling) {
 			unsigned int child_points;
@@ -483,15 +489,23 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			child_points = oom_badness(child, memcg, nodemask,
 								totalpages);
 			if (child_points > victim_points) {
+				put_task_struct(victim);
 				victim = child;
 				victim_points = child_points;
+				get_task_struct(victim);
 			}
 		}
 	} while_each_thread(p, t);
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
-	victim = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
-	if (!victim)
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
+	if (!p) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		put_task_struct(victim);
 		return;
+	} else
+		victim = p;
 
 	/* mm cannot safely be dereferenced after task_unlock(victim) */
 	mm = victim->mm;
@@ -522,9 +536,11 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 			task_unlock(p);
 			do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
 		}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	set_tsk_thread_flag(victim, TIF_MEMDIE);
 	do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, victim, true);
+	put_task_struct(victim);
 }
 #undef K
 
@@ -545,9 +561,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(enum oom_constraint constraint, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 		if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
 			return;
 	}
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL, nodemask);
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	panic("Out of memory: %s panic_on_oom is enabled\n",
 		sysctl_panic_on_oom == 2 ? "compulsory" : "system-wide");
 }
@@ -720,10 +734,10 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	mpol_mask = (constraint == CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY) ? nodemask : NULL;
 	check_panic_on_oom(constraint, gfp_mask, order, mpol_mask);
 
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	if (sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
 	    !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, nodemask) &&
 	    current->mm) {
+		get_task_struct(current);
 		oom_kill_process(current, gfp_mask, order, 0, totalpages, NULL,
 				 nodemask,
 				 "Out of memory (oom_kill_allocating_task)");
@@ -734,7 +748,6 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 	/* Found nothing?!?! Either we hang forever, or we panic. */
 	if (!p) {
 		dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL, mpol_mask);
-		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		panic("Out of memory and no killable processes...\n");
 	}
 	if (PTR_ERR(p) != -1UL) {
@@ -743,8 +756,6 @@ void out_of_memory(struct zonelist *zonelist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
 		killed = 1;
 	}
 out:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-
 	/*
 	 * Give "p" a good chance of killing itself before we
 	 * retry to allocate memory unless "p" is current

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-28  1:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-26  1:47 [patch 1/3] mm, oom: move declaration for mem_cgroup_out_of_memory to oom.h David Rientjes
2012-06-26  1:47 ` David Rientjes
2012-06-26  1:47 ` [rfc][patch 2/3] mm, oom: introduce helper function to process threads during scan David Rientjes
2012-06-26  1:47   ` David Rientjes
2012-06-26  3:22   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26  3:22     ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26  6:05     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-06-26  8:48   ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-26  8:48     ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-26  1:47 ` [rfc][patch 3/3] mm, memcg: introduce own oom handler to iterate only over its own threads David Rientjes
2012-06-26  1:47   ` David Rientjes
2012-06-26  5:32   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26  5:32     ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26 20:38     ` David Rientjes
2012-06-27  5:35       ` David Rientjes
2012-06-27  5:35         ` David Rientjes
2012-06-28  1:43         ` David Rientjes [this message]
2012-06-28  1:43           ` David Rientjes
2012-06-28 17:16           ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-29 20:37             ` David Rientjes
2012-06-28  8:55         ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-28  8:55           ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-29 20:30           ` David Rientjes
2012-06-29 20:30             ` David Rientjes
2012-07-03 17:56             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-06-28  8:52       ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26  9:58   ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-26  9:58     ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-26  3:12 ` [patch 1/3] mm, oom: move declaration for mem_cgroup_out_of_memory to oom.h Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-26  6:04   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-06-26  6:04     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-06-26  8:34 ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-26  8:34   ` Michal Hocko
2012-06-29 21:06 ` [patch 1/5] " David Rientjes
2012-06-29 21:06   ` [patch 2/5] mm, oom: introduce helper function to process threads during scan David Rientjes
2012-06-29 21:06     ` David Rientjes
2012-07-12  7:18     ` Sha Zhengju
2012-07-12  7:18       ` Sha Zhengju
2012-06-29 21:06   ` [patch 3/5] mm, memcg: introduce own oom handler to iterate only over its own threads David Rientjes
2012-06-29 21:06     ` David Rientjes
2012-07-10 21:19     ` Andrew Morton
2012-07-10 21:19       ` Andrew Morton
2012-07-10 23:24       ` David Rientjes
2012-07-12 14:50     ` Sha Zhengju
2012-07-12 14:50       ` Sha Zhengju
2012-06-29 21:06   ` [patch 4/5] mm, oom: reduce dependency on tasklist_lock David Rientjes
2012-07-03 18:17     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-07-03 18:17       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-07-10 21:04       ` David Rientjes
2012-07-13 14:32     ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-13 14:32       ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-16  7:42       ` [PATCH mmotm] mm, oom: reduce dependency on tasklist_lock: fix Hugh Dickins
2012-07-16  7:42         ` Hugh Dickins
2012-07-16  8:06         ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-16  8:06           ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-16  9:01           ` Hugh Dickins
2012-07-16  9:27             ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-19 10:11         ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-07-19 10:11           ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-06-29 21:07   ` [patch 5/5] mm, memcg: move all oom handling to memcontrol.c David Rientjes
2012-06-29 21:07     ` David Rientjes
2012-07-04  5:51     ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-07-04  5:51       ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-07-13 14:34     ` Michal Hocko
2012-07-10 21:05   ` [patch 1/5] mm, oom: move declaration for mem_cgroup_out_of_memory to oom.h David Rientjes
2012-07-10 21:05     ` 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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271837460.14446@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.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.