On Wed 17-05-17 10:25:09, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 17 May 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > If you have screwy things like static mbinds in there then you are > > > hopelessly lost anyways. You may have moved the process to another set > > > of nodes but the static bindings may refer to a node no longer > > > available. Thus the OOM is legitimate. > > > > The point is that you do _not_ want such a process to trigger the OOM > > because it can cause other processes being killed. > > Nope. The OOM in a cpuset gets the process doing the alloc killed. Or what > that changed? > > At this point you have messed up royally and nothing is going to rescue > you anyways. OOM or not does not matter anymore. The app will fail. Not really. If you can trick the system to _think_ that the intersection between mempolicy and the cpuset is empty then the OOM killer might trigger an innocent task rather than the one which tricked it into that situation. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
