linux-kernel - Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201710022056.EJI43796.FSFLOHQJtOVMOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:56:31 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     shakeelb@...gle.com, thockin@...kin.org
Cc:     guro@...com, mhocko@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, tj@...nel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, rientjes@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer

Shakeel Butt wrote:
> I think Tim has given very clear explanation why comparing A & D makes
> perfect sense. However I think the above example, a single user system
> where a user has designed and created the whole hierarchy and then
> attaches different jobs/applications to different nodes in this
> hierarchy, is also a valid scenario. One solution I can think of, to
> cater both scenarios, is to introduce a notion of 'bypass oom' or not
> include a memcg for oom comparision and instead include its children
> in the comparison.

I'm not catching up to this thread because I don't use memcg.
But if there are multiple scenarios, what about offloading memcg OOM
handling to loadable kernel modules (like there are many filesystems
which are called by VFS interface) ? We can do try and error more casually.