From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BFBB6B0087 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:54:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oBM8saRM021674 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:54:36 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B49745DE5C for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:54:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C8945DE54 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:54:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A92FE38001 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:54:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17403E08001 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:54:36 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:48:29 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] memcg: add oom killer delay Message-Id: <20101222174829.226ef641.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20101221235924.b5c1aecc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20101222171749.06ef5559.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Daisuke Nishimura , Divyesh Shah , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:48:53 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > seems to be hard to use. No one can estimate "milisecond" for avoidling > > OOM-kill. I think this is very bad. Nack to this feature itself. > > > > There's no estimation that is really needed, we simply need to be able to > stall long enough that we'll eventually kill "something" if userspace > fails to act. > Why we have to think of usermode failure by mis configuration or user mode bug ? It's a work of Middleware in usual. Please make libcgroup or libvirt more useful. > > If you want something smart _in kernel_, please implement followings. > > > > - When hit oom, enlarge limit to some extent. > > - All processes in cgroup should be stopped. > > - A helper application will be called by usermode_helper(). > > - When a helper application exit(), automatically release all processes > > to run again. > > > > Hmm, that's a _lot_ of policy to be implemented in the kernel itself and > comes at the cost of either being faulty (if the limit cannot be > increased) or harmful (when increasing the limit is detrimental to other > memcg). > Or runnking a helper function in "root" cgroup which has no limit at all. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org