[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5wiJvZw0yCS+KuDDYawUDAL=h0UBFXhY44FN84BsXrtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:50:47 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, mm: account filp and names caches to kmemcg
> Why is OOM-disabling a thing? Why isn't this simply a "kill everything
> else before you kill me"? It's crashing the kernel in trying to
> protect a userspace application. How is that not insane?
In parallel to other discussion, I think we should definitely move
from "completely oom-disabled" semantics to something similar to "kill
me last" semantics. Is there any objection to this idea?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists