HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
hakavlad
le9-patch
Systems & Infrastructure2021–2022
hakavlad / le9-patch

le9-patch

[PATCH] mm: Protect the working set under memory pressure to prevent thrashing, avoid high latency and prevent livelock in near-OOM conditions

8Distinct people
11Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
228GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

[PATCH] mm: Protect the working set under memory pressure to prevent thrashing, avoid high latency and prevent livelock in near-OOM conditions

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 10:49:33 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month11 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2021-03-14 15:39:20 UTC to 2022-02-04 20:38:44 UTC.

01232021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsMar 20212021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsAug 20212021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 2022

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Mar 20212021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Apr 20212021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20212021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20212021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20212021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC312
Aug 20212021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20212021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20212021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Nov 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20212021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

1 sources
As long as you have only spinning rust for swap I disable it. After reading that article some time ago I tried to add a little swap to my shared general purpose machines (running quite a mixed workload that sometimes tends to explode e.g. matrix synapse is famous for that) and the box still grinded into an unresponsive state even with just 4GB swap. Maybe I did something wrong - But I'd rather tolerate an OOM kill (mostly contained by cgroups/container/lxd) and a few seconds (or minutes) of unresponsiveness instead of a complete lockup that results in a hard reset. Not sure if it's better on SSD. I've enabled zswap for 1/8 of memory on the Desktop and this seems to improve things but as long as you have spinning rust or other slow storage my experience is that the machine will die a slow death as long as swap is active. There is some inte
Read the rest
resting stuff in newer kernels - like multigenerational mru [1] and that le9 patchset [2] Am I missing something? If you have full control over the memory usage this might be useful for the mentioned usecase but for a general purpose machine this doesn't work? 1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/20210818... 2: https://github.com/hakavlad/le9-patch
In In defence of swap: common misconceptions (2018)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.