From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ea0-f180.google.com (mail-ea0-f180.google.com [209.85.215.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CC06B0031 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f15so356212eak.11 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p9si24413010eew.34.2013.12.12.08.32.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:32:22 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] mm, memcg: allow processes handling oom notifications to access reserves Message-ID: <20131212163222.GK2630@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20131205025026.GA26777@htj.dyndns.org> <20131206190105.GE13373@htj.dyndns.org> <20131210215037.GB9143@htj.dyndns.org> <20131211124240.GA24557@htj.dyndns.org> <20131212142156.GB32683@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131212142156.GB32683@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Tim Hockin , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , Li Zefan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Cgroups On Thu 12-12-13 09:21:56, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > There'd still be all the bells and whistles to configure and monitor > system-level OOM and if there's justified need for improvements, we > surely can and should do that; You weren't on the CC of the original thread which has started here https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/19/191. And the original request for discussion was more about user defined _policies_ for the global OOM rather than user space global OOM handler. I feel that there are usacases where the current "kill a single task based on some calculations" is far from optimal which leads to hacks which try to cope with after oom condition somehow gracefully. I do agree with you that pulling oom handling sounds too dangerous even with all the code that it would need and I feel we should go a different path than (ab)using memcg.oom_control interface for that. I still think we need to have a way to tell the global OOM killer what to do. [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org