From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF5FC6B0087 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oBM912uV016064 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:02 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FB945DD74 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0CD45DE4E for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7A51DB8038 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A391DB803A for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:01:02 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:55:15 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] memcg: add oom killer delay Message-Id: <20101222175515.9e88917a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20101222174829.226ef641.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20101221235924.b5c1aecc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20101222171749.06ef5559.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101222174829.226ef641.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: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Daisuke Nishimura , Divyesh Shah , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:48:29 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > 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. For example. oom_check_deadlockd can work as 1. disable oom by memory.oom_disable=1 2. check memory.oom_notify and wait it by poll() 3. At oom, it wakes up. 4. wait for 60 secs. 5. If the cgroup is still in OOM, set oom_disalble=0 This daemon will not use much memory and can run in /roog memory cgroup. 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