[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCzMVa5QSyUtlmnI@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:57:09 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Eiichi Tsukata <eiichi.tsukata@...anix.com>, corbet@....net,
mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, felipe.franciosi@...anix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: introduce vm.sacrifice_hugepage_on_oom
On Tue 16-02-21 14:30:15, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> However, this is an 'opt in' feature. So, I would not expect anyone who
> carefully plans the size of their hugetlb pool to enable such a feature.
> If there is a use case where hugetlb pages are used in a non-essential
> application, this might be of use.
I would really like to hear about the specific usecase. Because it
smells more like a misconfiguration. What would be non-essential hugetlb
pages? This is not a resource to be pre-allocated just in case, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists