From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [v3 5/6] mm, oom: don't mark all oom victims tasks with TIF_MEMDIE Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:53:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20170629085357.GF31603@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1498079956-24467-1-git-send-email-guro@fb.com> <1498079956-24467-6-git-send-email-guro@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1498079956-24467-6-git-send-email-guro@fb.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Tetsuo Handa , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote: > We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access > to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough > to have one such process at the time. > > If we need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the > memory reserves only to the first process in the list, which is > (usually) the biggest process. > This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able > to quit without an access to the memory reserves. I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]? [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org -- 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