From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f72.google.com (mail-lf0-f72.google.com [209.85.215.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D306B0005 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 10:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f72.google.com with SMTP id m64so69940039lfd.1 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 07:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com. [74.125.82.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j124si4021212wmg.99.2016.05.13.07.54.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 May 2016 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id e201so4215145wme.2 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:54:45 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add config option to select the initial overcommit mode Message-ID: <20160513145445.GT20141@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <5731CC6E.3080807@laposte.net> <20160513080458.GF20141@dhcp22.suse.cz> <573593EE.6010502@free.fr> <5735A3DE.9030100@laposte.net> <20160513120042.GK20141@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5735CAE5.5010104@laposte.net> <935da2a3-1fda-bc71-48a5-bb212db305de@gmail.com> <5735D77C.9090803@laposte.net> <50852f22-6030-7361-4273-91b5bea446ed@gmail.com> <5735E628.9080306@laposte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5735E628.9080306@laposte.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sebastian Frias Cc: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" , Mason , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML On Fri 13-05-16 16:35:20, Sebastian Frias wrote: > Hi Austin, > > On 05/13/2016 03:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > On 2016-05-13 09:32, Sebastian Frias wrote: > >> I didn't see that in Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting or am I looking in the wrong place? > > It's controlled by a sysctl value, so it's listed in Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt > > The relevant sysctl is vm.oom_kill_allocating_task > > Thanks, I just read that. > Does not look like a replacement for overcommit=never though. No this is just an OOM strategy. I wouldn't recommend it though because the behavior might be really time dependant - unlike the regular OOM killer strategy to select the largest memory consumer. And again, overcommit=never doesn't imply no-OOM. It just makes it less likely. The kernel can consume quite some unreclaimable memory as well. -- 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