lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:02:34 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, 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>, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, Linus@...p1.linux-foundation.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller Hi > > > As Alan Cox suggested/wondered in this thread, > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/12/235 , this is a container group based approach > > > to override the oom killer selection without losing all the benefits of the > > > current oom killer heuristics and oom_adj interface. > > > > > > It adds a tunable oom.victim to the oom cgroup. The oom killer will kill the > > > process using the usual badness value but only within the cgroup with the > > > maximum value for oom.victim before killing any process from a cgroup with a > > > lesser oom.victim number. Oom killing could be disabled by setting > > > oom.victim=0. > > > > Looking at the patch, I wonder if it is time for user space OOM > > notifications that were discussed during the containers mini-summit. > > The idea is to inform user space about OOM's and let user space take > > action, if no action is taken, the default handler kicks in. > > The OLPC folks (Marcelo I believe) posted code for this and I believe > OLPC is using this functionality internally so that under memory pressure > (before we actually hit OOM) programs can respond by doing stuff like > evicting caches. Confused. As far as I know, people want the method of flexible cache treating. but oom seems less flexible than userland notification. Why do you think notification is bad? -- 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