[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0901270316040.25608@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:21:26 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> > I don't understand what you're arguing for here. Are you suggesting that
> > we should not prefer tasks that intersect the set of allowable nodes?
> > That makes no sense if the goal is to allow for future memory freeing.
> >
>
> No. Actually I am just wondering, will it be possible to check whether a
> particular task has memory allocated or mmaped from this node to avoid killing
> an innocent task.
That's certainly idealistic, but cannot be done in an inexpensive way that
would scale with the large systems that clients of cpusets typically use.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists