* [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc()
@ 2019-06-13 13:55 Yafang Shao
2019-06-13 18:56 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yafang Shao @ 2019-06-13 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm, mhocko; +Cc: linux-mm, Yafang Shao
In dump_oom_summary() oc->constraint is used to show
oom_constraint_text, but it hasn't been set before.
So the value of it is always the default value 0.
We should set it in constrained_alloc().
Bellow is the output when memcg oom occurs,
before this patch:
[ 133.078102] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_NONE,nodemask=(null),
cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=7997,uid=0
after this patch:
[ 952.977946] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),
cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=13681,uid=0
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 5a58778..075e5cf 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -261,29 +261,37 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
struct zone *zone;
struct zoneref *z;
enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(oc->gfp_mask);
+ enum oom_constraint constraint;
bool cpuset_limited = false;
int nid;
if (is_memcg_oom(oc)) {
oc->totalpages = mem_cgroup_get_max(oc->memcg) ?: 1;
- return CONSTRAINT_MEMCG;
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_MEMCG;
+ goto out;
}
/* Default to all available memory */
oc->totalpages = totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages;
- if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA))
- return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)) {
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ goto out;
+ }
- if (!oc->zonelist)
- return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ if (!oc->zonelist) {
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ goto out;
+ }
/*
* Reach here only when __GFP_NOFAIL is used. So, we should avoid
* to kill current.We have to random task kill in this case.
* Hopefully, CONSTRAINT_THISNODE...but no way to handle it, now.
*/
- if (oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)
- return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ if (oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE) {
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+ goto out;
+ }
/*
* This is not a __GFP_THISNODE allocation, so a truncated nodemask in
@@ -295,7 +303,8 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
oc->totalpages = total_swap_pages;
for_each_node_mask(nid, *oc->nodemask)
oc->totalpages += node_spanned_pages(nid);
- return CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY;
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY;
+ goto out;
}
/* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */
@@ -308,9 +317,15 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
oc->totalpages = total_swap_pages;
for_each_node_mask(nid, cpuset_current_mems_allowed)
oc->totalpages += node_spanned_pages(nid);
- return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
+ goto out;
}
- return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+
+ constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
+
+out:
+ oc->constraint = constraint;
+ return constraint;
}
static int oom_evaluate_task(struct task_struct *task, void *arg)
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc()
2019-06-13 13:55 [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc() Yafang Shao
@ 2019-06-13 18:56 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-14 5:58 ` Yafang Shao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2019-06-13 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yafang Shao; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, yuzhoujian
On Thu 13-06-19 21:55:50, Yafang Shao wrote:
> In dump_oom_summary() oc->constraint is used to show
> oom_constraint_text, but it hasn't been set before.
> So the value of it is always the default value 0.
> We should set it in constrained_alloc().
Thanks for catching that.
> Bellow is the output when memcg oom occurs,
>
> before this patch:
> [ 133.078102] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_NONE,nodemask=(null),
> cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=7997,uid=0
>
> after this patch:
> [ 952.977946] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),
> cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=13681,uid=0
>
unless I am missing something
Fixes: ef8444ea01d7 ("mm, oom: reorganize the oom report in dump_header")
The patch looks correct but I think it is more complicated than it needs
to be. Can we do the following instead?
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 5a58778c91d4..f719b64741d6 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -987,8 +987,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
/*
* Determines whether the kernel must panic because of the panic_on_oom sysctl.
*/
-static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
- enum oom_constraint constraint)
+static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
{
if (likely(!sysctl_panic_on_oom))
return;
@@ -998,7 +997,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
* does not panic for cpuset, mempolicy, or memcg allocation
* failures.
*/
- if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
+ if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
return;
}
/* Do not panic for oom kills triggered by sysrq */
@@ -1035,7 +1034,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_oom_notifier);
bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
{
unsigned long freed = 0;
- enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
if (oom_killer_disabled)
return false;
@@ -1071,10 +1069,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
* Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for
* NUMA and memcg) that may require different handling.
*/
- constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
- if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
+ oc->constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
+ if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
oc->nodemask = NULL;
- check_panic_on_oom(oc, constraint);
+ check_panic_on_oom(oc);
if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, oc->nodemask) &&
I guess the current confusion comes from the fact that we have
constraint both in the oom_control and a local variable so I would
rather remove that. What do you think?
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> ---
> mm/oom_kill.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 5a58778..075e5cf 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -261,29 +261,37 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
> struct zone *zone;
> struct zoneref *z;
> enum zone_type high_zoneidx = gfp_zone(oc->gfp_mask);
> + enum oom_constraint constraint;
> bool cpuset_limited = false;
> int nid;
>
> if (is_memcg_oom(oc)) {
> oc->totalpages = mem_cgroup_get_max(oc->memcg) ?: 1;
> - return CONSTRAINT_MEMCG;
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_MEMCG;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> /* Default to all available memory */
> oc->totalpages = totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages;
>
> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA))
> - return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)) {
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> - if (!oc->zonelist)
> - return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + if (!oc->zonelist) {
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + goto out;
> + }
> /*
> * Reach here only when __GFP_NOFAIL is used. So, we should avoid
> * to kill current.We have to random task kill in this case.
> * Hopefully, CONSTRAINT_THISNODE...but no way to handle it, now.
> */
> - if (oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)
> - return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + if (oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE) {
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> /*
> * This is not a __GFP_THISNODE allocation, so a truncated nodemask in
> @@ -295,7 +303,8 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
> oc->totalpages = total_swap_pages;
> for_each_node_mask(nid, *oc->nodemask)
> oc->totalpages += node_spanned_pages(nid);
> - return CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY;
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> /* Check this allocation failure is caused by cpuset's wall function */
> @@ -308,9 +317,15 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
> oc->totalpages = total_swap_pages;
> for_each_node_mask(nid, cpuset_current_mems_allowed)
> oc->totalpages += node_spanned_pages(nid);
> - return CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_CPUSET;
> + goto out;
> }
> - return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> +
> + constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> +
> +out:
> + oc->constraint = constraint;
> + return constraint;
> }
>
> static int oom_evaluate_task(struct task_struct *task, void *arg)
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc()
2019-06-13 18:56 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2019-06-14 5:58 ` Yafang Shao
2019-06-14 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yafang Shao @ 2019-06-14 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux MM, yuzhoujian
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 13-06-19 21:55:50, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > In dump_oom_summary() oc->constraint is used to show
> > oom_constraint_text, but it hasn't been set before.
> > So the value of it is always the default value 0.
> > We should set it in constrained_alloc().
>
> Thanks for catching that.
>
> > Bellow is the output when memcg oom occurs,
> >
> > before this patch:
> > [ 133.078102] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_NONE,nodemask=(null),
> > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=7997,uid=0
> >
> > after this patch:
> > [ 952.977946] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),
> > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=13681,uid=0
> >
>
> unless I am missing something
> Fixes: ef8444ea01d7 ("mm, oom: reorganize the oom report in dump_header")
>
> The patch looks correct but I think it is more complicated than it needs
> to be. Can we do the following instead?
>
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 5a58778c91d4..f719b64741d6 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -987,8 +987,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> /*
> * Determines whether the kernel must panic because of the panic_on_oom sysctl.
> */
> -static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> - enum oom_constraint constraint)
> +static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
> {
> if (likely(!sysctl_panic_on_oom))
> return;
> @@ -998,7 +997,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> * does not panic for cpuset, mempolicy, or memcg allocation
> * failures.
> */
> - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> return;
> }
> /* Do not panic for oom kills triggered by sysrq */
> @@ -1035,7 +1034,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_oom_notifier);
> bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> {
> unsigned long freed = 0;
> - enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
>
> if (oom_killer_disabled)
> return false;
> @@ -1071,10 +1069,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> * Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for
> * NUMA and memcg) that may require different handling.
> */
> - constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> + oc->constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> oc->nodemask = NULL;
> - check_panic_on_oom(oc, constraint);
> + check_panic_on_oom(oc);
>
> if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
> current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, oc->nodemask) &&
>
> I guess the current confusion comes from the fact that we have
> constraint both in the oom_control and a local variable so I would
> rather remove that. What do you think?
Remove the local variable is fine by me.
Thanks
Yafang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc()
2019-06-14 5:58 ` Yafang Shao
@ 2019-06-14 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-14 9:46 ` Yafang Shao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2019-06-14 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yafang Shao; +Cc: yuzhoujian, Linux MM, Andrew Morton
On Fri 14-06-19 13:58:11, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 13-06-19 21:55:50, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > In dump_oom_summary() oc->constraint is used to show
> > > oom_constraint_text, but it hasn't been set before.
> > > So the value of it is always the default value 0.
> > > We should set it in constrained_alloc().
> >
> > Thanks for catching that.
> >
> > > Bellow is the output when memcg oom occurs,
> > >
> > > before this patch:
> > > [ 133.078102] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_NONE,nodemask=(null),
> > > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=7997,uid=0
> > >
> > > after this patch:
> > > [ 952.977946] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),
> > > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=13681,uid=0
> > >
> >
> > unless I am missing something
> > Fixes: ef8444ea01d7 ("mm, oom: reorganize the oom report in dump_header")
> >
> > The patch looks correct but I think it is more complicated than it needs
> > to be. Can we do the following instead?
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 5a58778c91d4..f719b64741d6 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -987,8 +987,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> > /*
> > * Determines whether the kernel must panic because of the panic_on_oom sysctl.
> > */
> > -static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> > - enum oom_constraint constraint)
> > +static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
> > {
> > if (likely(!sysctl_panic_on_oom))
> > return;
> > @@ -998,7 +997,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> > * does not panic for cpuset, mempolicy, or memcg allocation
> > * failures.
> > */
> > - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> > + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> > return;
> > }
> > /* Do not panic for oom kills triggered by sysrq */
> > @@ -1035,7 +1034,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_oom_notifier);
> > bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > {
> > unsigned long freed = 0;
> > - enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> >
> > if (oom_killer_disabled)
> > return false;
> > @@ -1071,10 +1069,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > * Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for
> > * NUMA and memcg) that may require different handling.
> > */
> > - constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> > - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> > + oc->constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> > + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> > oc->nodemask = NULL;
> > - check_panic_on_oom(oc, constraint);
> > + check_panic_on_oom(oc);
> >
> > if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
> > current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, oc->nodemask) &&
> >
> > I guess the current confusion comes from the fact that we have
> > constraint both in the oom_control and a local variable so I would
> > rather remove that. What do you think?
>
> Remove the local variable is fine by me.
Could you repost the patch with the changelog mentioning Fixes and the
simpler diff please?
You can then add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc()
2019-06-14 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2019-06-14 9:46 ` Yafang Shao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yafang Shao @ 2019-06-14 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: yuzhoujian, Linux MM, Andrew Morton
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:22 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri 14-06-19 13:58:11, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu 13-06-19 21:55:50, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > In dump_oom_summary() oc->constraint is used to show
> > > > oom_constraint_text, but it hasn't been set before.
> > > > So the value of it is always the default value 0.
> > > > We should set it in constrained_alloc().
> > >
> > > Thanks for catching that.
> > >
> > > > Bellow is the output when memcg oom occurs,
> > > >
> > > > before this patch:
> > > > [ 133.078102] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_NONE,nodemask=(null),
> > > > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=7997,uid=0
> > > >
> > > > after this patch:
> > > > [ 952.977946] oom-kill:constraint=CONSTRAINT_MEMCG,nodemask=(null),
> > > > cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0,oom_memcg=/foo,task_memcg=/foo,task=bash,pid=13681,uid=0
> > > >
> > >
> > > unless I am missing something
> > > Fixes: ef8444ea01d7 ("mm, oom: reorganize the oom report in dump_header")
> > >
> > > The patch looks correct but I think it is more complicated than it needs
> > > to be. Can we do the following instead?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > index 5a58778c91d4..f719b64741d6 100644
> > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > @@ -987,8 +987,7 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> > > /*
> > > * Determines whether the kernel must panic because of the panic_on_oom sysctl.
> > > */
> > > -static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> > > - enum oom_constraint constraint)
> > > +static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > {
> > > if (likely(!sysctl_panic_on_oom))
> > > return;
> > > @@ -998,7 +997,7 @@ static void check_panic_on_oom(struct oom_control *oc,
> > > * does not panic for cpuset, mempolicy, or memcg allocation
> > > * failures.
> > > */
> > > - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> > > + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_NONE)
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > /* Do not panic for oom kills triggered by sysrq */
> > > @@ -1035,7 +1034,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_oom_notifier);
> > > bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long freed = 0;
> > > - enum oom_constraint constraint = CONSTRAINT_NONE;
> > >
> > > if (oom_killer_disabled)
> > > return false;
> > > @@ -1071,10 +1069,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
> > > * Check if there were limitations on the allocation (only relevant for
> > > * NUMA and memcg) that may require different handling.
> > > */
> > > - constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> > > - if (constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> > > + oc->constraint = constrained_alloc(oc);
> > > + if (oc->constraint != CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY)
> > > oc->nodemask = NULL;
> > > - check_panic_on_oom(oc, constraint);
> > > + check_panic_on_oom(oc);
> > >
> > > if (!is_memcg_oom(oc) && sysctl_oom_kill_allocating_task &&
> > > current->mm && !oom_unkillable_task(current, NULL, oc->nodemask) &&
> > >
> > > I guess the current confusion comes from the fact that we have
> > > constraint both in the oom_control and a local variable so I would
> > > rather remove that. What do you think?
> >
> > Remove the local variable is fine by me.
>
> Could you repost the patch with the changelog mentioning Fixes and the
> simpler diff please?
>
> You can then add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
Sure, I will.
Thanks
Yafang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-06-14 9:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-06-13 13:55 [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: set oc->constraint in constrained_alloc() Yafang Shao
2019-06-13 18:56 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-14 5:58 ` Yafang Shao
2019-06-14 8:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-06-14 9:46 ` Yafang Shao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).