From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com (mail-qc0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE086B0031 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x13so507148qcv.15 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:37:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qe0-x22d.google.com (mail-qe0-x22d.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w7si19347258qeg.0.2013.12.12.08.37.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 6so541590qea.32 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:37:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:37:06 -0500 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] mm, memcg: allow processes handling oom notifications to access reserves Message-ID: <20131212163706.GJ32683@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20131205025026.GA26777@htj.dyndns.org> <20131206190105.GE13373@htj.dyndns.org> <20131210215037.GB9143@htj.dyndns.org> <20131211124240.GA24557@htj.dyndns.org> <20131212142156.GB32683@htj.dyndns.org> <20131212163222.GK2630@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131212163222.GK2630@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Tim Hockin , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , Li Zefan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Cgroups Hello, Michal. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > You weren't on the CC of the original thread which has started here > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/19/191. And the original request for > discussion was more about user defined _policies_ for the global > OOM rather than user space global OOM handler. I feel that there > are usacases where the current "kill a single task based on some > calculations" is far from optimal which leads to hacks which try to cope > with after oom condition somehow gracefully. > > I do agree with you that pulling oom handling sounds too dangerous > even with all the code that it would need and I feel we should go a > different path than (ab)using memcg.oom_control interface for that. > I still think we need to have a way to tell the global OOM killer what > to do. Oh yeah, sure, I have no fundamental objections against improving the in-kernel system OOM handler, including making it cgroup-aware which seems like a natural extension to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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