From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E56B016A for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:09:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6363EE0AE for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:09:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE66645DE5D for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:09:48 +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 B524B45DE59 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:09:48 +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 A2DAC1DB8054 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:09:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.133]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B7E1DB804F for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:09:48 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:02:19 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable OOM when moving processes between cgroups? Message-Id: <20110901090219.187777ab.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20110831175422.GB21571@redhat.com> References: <1314811941-14587-1-git-send-email-viktor.rosendahl@nokia.com> <20110831175422.GB21571@redhat.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: Johannes Weiner Cc: Viktor Rosendahl , linux-mm@kvack.org, Daisuke Nishimura , Michal Hocko On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:54:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:32:21PM +0300, Viktor Rosendahl wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I wonder if there is a specific reason why the OOM killer hasn't been enabled > > in the mem_cgroup_do_precharge() function in mm/memcontrol.c ? > > > > In my testing (2.6.32 kernel with some backported cgroups patches), it improves > > the case when there isn't room for the task in the target cgroup. > > Tasks are moved directly on behalf of a request from userspace. We > would much prefer denying that single request than invoking the > oom-killer on the whole group. > Yes, I agree. > Quite a lot changed in the trycharge-reclaim-retry path since 2009. > Nowadays, charging is retried as long as reclaim is making any > progress at all, so I don't see that it would give up moving a task > too lightly, even without the extra OOM looping. > > Is there any chance you could retry with a more recent kernel? > It's curious topic. 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