[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190411181946.GC10383@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:19:46 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process
On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
[...]
> > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > on it.
>
> Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation
> throttling that we can fall back to stop memory depletion. However
> having a way to free up resources that are not needed by a dying
> process quickly would help to avoid throttling which hurts user
> experience.
I am not opposing speeding up the exit time in general. That is a good
thing. Especially for a very large processes (e.g. a DB). But I do not
really think we want to expose an API to control this specific aspect.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists