On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:24:31 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> [2009-01-21 16:38:21]: > > > As Alan Cox suggested/wondered in this thread, > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/12/235 , this is a container group based approach > > to override the oom killer selection without losing all the benefits of the > > current oom killer heuristics and oom_adj interface. > > > > It adds a tunable oom.victim to the oom cgroup. The oom killer will kill the > > process using the usual badness value but only within the cgroup with the > > maximum value for oom.victim before killing any process from a cgroup with a > > lesser oom.victim number. Oom killing could be disabled by setting > > oom.victim=0. > > Looking at the patch, I wonder if it is time for user space OOM > notifications that were discussed during the containers mini-summit. > The idea is to inform user space about OOM's and let user space take > action, if no action is taken, the default handler kicks in. The OLPC folks (Marcelo I believe) posted code for this and I believe OLPC is using this functionality internally so that under memory pressure (before we actually hit OOM) programs can respond by doing stuff like evicting caches. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
