From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:07:39 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8][for -mm] mem_notify v6 Message-ID: <20080219210739.27325078@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080219222828.GB28786@elf.ucw.cz> References: <2f11576a0802090719i3c08a41aj38504e854edbfeac@mail.gmail.com> <20080217084906.e1990b11.pj@sgi.com> <20080219145108.7E96.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080219090008.bb6cbe2f.pj@sgi.com> <20080219222828.GB28786@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pavel Machek Cc: Paul Jackson , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marcelo@kvack.org, daniel.spang@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, a1426z@gawab.com, jonathan@jonmasters.org, zlynx@acm.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:28:28 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote: > Sounds like a job for memory limits (ulimit?), not for OOM > notification, right? I suspect one problem could be that an HPC job scheduling program does not know exactly how much memory each job can take, so it can sometimes end up making a mistake and overcommitting the memory on one HPC node. In that case the user is better off having that job killed and restarted elsewhere, than having all of the jobs on that node crawl to a halt due to swapping. Paul, is this guess correct? :) -- All rights reversed. -- 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