[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180628113942.GD32348@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:39:42 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Bring OOM notifier callbacks to outside of OOM
killer.
On Wed 27-06-18 07:31:25, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:22:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 26-06-18 10:03:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 3. Something else?
> >
> > How hard it would be to use a different API than oom notifiers? E.g. a
> > shrinker which just kicks all the pending callbacks if the reclaim
> > priority reaches low values (e.g. 0)?
>
> Beats me. What is a shrinker? ;-)
This is a generich mechanism to reclaim memory that is not on standard
LRU lists. Lwn.net surely has some nice coverage (e.g.
https://lwn.net/Articles/548092/).
> More seriously, could you please point me at an exemplary shrinker
> use case so I can see what is involved?
Well, I am not really sure what is the objective of the oom notifier to
point you to the right direction. IIUC you just want to kick callbacks
to be handled sooner under a heavy memory pressure, right? How is that
achieved? Kick a worker?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists