[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231002153606.GB5054@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:36:06 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
riel@...riel.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com,
shuah@...nel.org, yosryahmed@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb memcg accounting
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 04:58:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Also there is not OOM as hugetlb pages are costly requests and we do not
> invoke the oom killer.
Ah good point.
That seems like a policy choice we could make. However, since hugetlb
users are already set up for and come to expect SIGBUS for physical
failure as well as hugetlb_cgroup limits, we should have memcg follow
established precedent and leave the OOM killer out.
Agree that a sentence in the changelog about this makes sense though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists