From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta8.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta8.messagelabs.com [216.82.243.55]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11DB6B00EE for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:54:22 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable OOM when moving processes between cgroups? Message-ID: <20110831175422.GB21571@redhat.com> References: <1314811941-14587-1-git-send-email-viktor.rosendahl@nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314811941-14587-1-git-send-email-viktor.rosendahl@nokia.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Viktor Rosendahl Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Daisuke Nishimura , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Michal Hocko On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:32:21PM +0300, Viktor Rosendahl wrote: > Hello, > > I wonder if there is a specific reason why the OOM killer hasn't been enabled > in the mem_cgroup_do_precharge() function in mm/memcontrol.c ? > > In my testing (2.6.32 kernel with some backported cgroups patches), it improves > the case when there isn't room for the task in the target cgroup. Tasks are moved directly on behalf of a request from userspace. We would much prefer denying that single request than invoking the oom-killer on the whole group. Quite a lot changed in the trycharge-reclaim-retry path since 2009. Nowadays, charging is retried as long as reclaim is making any progress at all, so I don't see that it would give up moving a task too lightly, even without the extra OOM looping. Is there any chance you could retry with a more recent kernel? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org