linux-kernel - Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom

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: <1fe17d13-4b63-93ab-e6b2-3c9d09da208e@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:33:27 +0800
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     rientjes@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom

I see, then let's do this as you said.


On 2023/4/6 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> As I've said, I do not see any major concern having this behavior
> implicit, the behavior makes semantic sense and it is also much more
> likely that the selected oom victim will be a better choice than what we
> do currently. Especially on properly partitioned systems with large
> memory consumers in each partition (cpuset).
> 
> That being said, I would just not add any sysctl at this stage and
> rather document the decision. If we ever encounter usecase(s) which
> would regress based on this change we can introcuce the sysctl later.
>