Hello, David. On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:08:10PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > 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. We're now just re-starting the whole discussion with all context lost. How is this a good idea? We talked about all this previously. If you have something to add, add there *please* so that other people can track it too. > 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. That's completely fine but if that's your intention please at least prefix the patchset with RFC and explicitly state that no consensus has been reached (well, it was more like negative consensus from what I remember) in the description so that it can't be picked up accidentally. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
