On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 6:44 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:27 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Is process_mrelease on all of them really necessary? I thought that the > > primary reason for the call is to guarantee a forward progress in cases > > where the userspace OOM victim cannot die on SIGKILL. That should be > > more an exception than a normal case, no? > > > > I am thinking of using this API in this way: On user-defined OOM > condition, kill a job/cgroup and unconditionally reap all of its > processes. Keep monitoring the situation and if it does not improve go > for another kill and reap. > > I can add additional logic in between kill and reap to see if reap is > necessary but unconditionally reaping is more simple. > > > > > > An alternative would be to have a cgroup specific interface for > > > reaping similar to cgroup.kill. > > > > Could you elaborate? > > > > I mentioned this in [1] where I was thinking if it makes sense to > overload cgroup.kill to also add the SIGKILLed processes in > oom_reaper_list. The downside would be that there will be one thread > doing the reaping and the syscall approach allows userspace to reap in > multiple threads. I think for now, I would go with whatever Suren is > proposing and we can always add more stuff if need arises. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/containers/CALvZod4jsb6bFzTOS4ZRAJGAzBru0oWanAhezToprjACfGm+ew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Hi Folks, So far I don't think there was any request for further changes. Anything else you would want me to address or are we in a good shape wrt this feature? If so, would people who had a chance to review this patchset be willing to endorse it with their Reviewed-by or Acked-by? Thanks, Suren.
