[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1406041218080.9583@eggly.anvils>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:46:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > In the other email I have suggested to add a knob with the configurable
> > default. Would you be OK with that?
>
> No, I want to agree on whether we need that fallback code or not. I'm
> not interested in merging code that you can't convince anybody else is
> needed.
I for one would welcome such a knob as Michal is proposing.
I thought it was long ago agreed that the low limit was going to fallback
when it couldn't be satisfied. But you seem implacably opposed to that
as default, and I can well believe that Google is so accustomed to OOMing
that it is more comfortable with OOMing as the default. Okay. But I
would expect there to be many who want the attempt towards isolation that
low limit offers, without a collapse to OOM at the first misjudgement.
Hugh
--
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