[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131118185213.GA12923@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:52:13 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for
system oom
On Thu 14-11-13 15:26:55, David Rientjes wrote:
> A subset of applications that wait on memory.oom_control don't disable
> the oom killer for that memcg and simply log or cleanup after the kernel
> oom killer kills a process to free memory.
>
> We need the ability to do this for system oom conditions as well, i.e.
> when the system is depleted of all memory and must kill a process. For
> convenience, this can use memcg since oom notifiers are already present.
Using the memcg interface for "read-only" interface without any plan for
the "write" is only halfway solution. We want to handle global OOM in a
more user defined ways but we have to agree on the proper interface
first. I do not want to end up with something half baked with memcg and
a different interface to do the real thing just because memcg turns out
to be unsuitable.
And to be honest, the more I am thinking about memcg based interface the
stronger is my feeling that it is unsuitable for the user defined OOM
policies. But that should be discussed properly (I will send a RFD in
the follow up days).
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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