[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140306211506.GD17902@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:15:06 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>,
Tim Hockin <thockin@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 10/11] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for
system oom
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:59:41PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> Now that process handling system oom conditions have access to a small
> amount of memory reserves, we need a way to notify those process on
> system oom conditions.
>
> When a userspace process waits on the root memcg's memory.oom_control, it
> will wake up anytime there is a system oom condition.
>
> This is a special case of oom notifiers since it doesn't subsequently
> notify all memcgs under the root memcg (all memcgs on the system). We
> don't want to trigger those oom handlers which are set aside specifically
> for true memcg oom notifications that disable their own oom killers to
> enforce their own oom policy, for example.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Until consensus on the whole approach can be reached,
Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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