[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090127215539.GC12431@ioremap.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:55:39 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:41:03PM -0800, David Rientjes (rientjes@...gle.com) wrote:
> > Having some special application which will monitor /dev/mem_notify and
> > kill processes based on its own hueristics is a good idea, but when it
> > fails to do its work (or does not exist) system has to have ability to
> > make a progress and invoke a main oom-killer.
>
> Agreed, very similiar to the cgroup oom notifier patch that invokes the
> oom killer if there are no attached tasks waiting to handle the situation.
>
> In this case, it would be a configurable delay to allow userspace to act
> in response to oom conditions before invoking the kernel oom killer. So
> instead of thinking of this as a userspace replacement for the oom killer,
> it simply preempts it if userspace can provide more memory, including the
> possibility of killing tasks itself.
How different may look idea expressed by the different phrases and cold
heads :)
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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