[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131118231506.32ec2467@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:15:06 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for
system oom
> And accessing the emergency reserves means we are definitely no longer
> A-OK, this is not comparable to the first direct reclaim invocation.
>
> We exhausted our options and we got really lucky. It should not be
> considered the baseline and a user listening for "OOM conditions"
> should be informed about this.
Definitely concur - there are loading tuning cases where you want to
drive the box to the point it starts whining and then scale back a touch.
It's an API change in effect, and while I can believe there are good
arguments for both any API change ought to be a new API for listening
only to serious OOM cases.
--
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