Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling

David Rientjes
2014-03-06T21:23:57Z

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> > I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion: it's necessary because any
> > process handling the oom condition will need memory to do anything useful.
> > How else would a process that is handling a system oom condition, for
> > example, be able to obtain a list of processes, check memory usage, issue
> > a kill, do any logging, collect heap or smaps samples, or signal processes
> > to throttle incoming requests without having access to memory itself? The
> > system is oom.
>
> We're now just re-starting the whole discussion with all context lost.
> How is this a good idea? We talked about all this previously. If you
> have something to add, add there *please* so that other people can
> track it too.
>

I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you
missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not
include support for system oom handling. Nothing that I wrote above was
possible with the first patchset. This is the complete support.

> That's completely fine but if that's your intention please at least
> prefix the patchset with RFC and explicitly state that no consensus
> has been reached (well, it was more like negative consensus from what
> I remember) in the description so that it can't be picked up
> accidentally.
>

This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not
solved with any other patchset. I expect it to be reviewed as any other
patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for
inclusion. Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything
accidentally.