From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE698D0039 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AED3EE0C2 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E159B45DE4E for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B1C45DE4F for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBD71DB8040 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.145]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8458C1DB8037 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:27 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:49:01 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] memcg: add oom killer delay Message-Id: <20110308144901.fe34abd0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20110303135223.0a415e69.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110307162912.2d8c70c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110307165119.436f5d21.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110307171853.c31ec416.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110308115108.36b184c5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110308121332.de003f81.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110308131723.e434cb89.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 List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Daisuke Nishimura , linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:30:19 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > Hmm? That's an unexpected answer. Why system's capacity is problem here ? > > (root memcg has no 'limit' always.) > > > > Is it a problem that 'there is no 'guarantee' or 'private page pool' > > for daemons ? > > > > It's not an inherent problem of memcg, it's a configuration issue: if your > userspace application cannot respond to address an oom condition in a > memcg for whatever reason (such as it being in an oom memcg itself), then > there's a chance that the memcg will livelock since the kernel cannot do > anything to fix the issue itself. > > That's aside from the general purpose of the new > memory.oom_delay_millisecs: users may want a grace period for userspace to > increase the hard limit or kill a task before deferring to the kernel. > That seems exponentially more useful than simply disabling the oom killer > entirely with memory.oom_control. I think it's unfortunate > memory.oom_control was merged frst and seems to have tainted this entire > discussion. > That sounds like a mis-usage problem....what kind of workaround is offerred if the user doesn't configure oom_delay_millisecs , a yet another mis-usage ? 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org