On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo wrote: > > This includes system oom handling alongside memcg oom handling. If you > > have specific objections, please let us know, thanks! > > Umm, that wasn't the bulk of objection, was it? We were discussion > the whole premise of userland oom handling and the conclusion, at > best, was that you couldn't show that it was actually necessary and > most other people disliked the idea. 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. > Just changing a part of it and > resubmitting doesn't really change the whole situation. If you want > to continue the discussion on the basic approach, please do continue > that on the original thread so that we don't lose the context. I'm > gonna nack the respective patches so that they don't get picked up by > accident for now. > This is going to be discussed at the LSF/mm conference, I believe it would be helpful to have an actual complete patchset proposed so that it can be discussed properly. I feel no need to refer to an older patchset that would not apply and did not include all the support necessary for handling oom conditions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
