> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Confused. > > > > As far as I know, people want the method of flexible cache treating. > > but oom seems less flexible than userland notification. > > > > Why do you think notification is bad? > > > > There're a couple of proposals that have been discussed recently that > share some functional behavior. > > One is the cgroup oom notifier that allows you to attach a task to wait on > an oom condition for a collection of tasks. That allows userspace to > respond to the condition by droping caches, adding nodes to a cpuset, > elevating memory controller limits, sending a signal, etc. It can also > defer to the kernel oom killer as a last resort. > > The other is /dev/mem_notify that allows you to poll() on a device file > and be informed of low memory events. This can include the cgroup oom > notifier behavior when a collection of tasks is completely out of memory, > but can also warn when such a condition may be imminent. I suggested that > this be implemented as a client of cgroups so that different handlers can > be responsible for different aggregates of tasks. > > I think the latter is a much more powerful tool and includes all the > behavior of the former. It preserves the oom killer as a last resort for > the kernel and defers all preference killing or lowmem responses to > userspace. Yup, indeed. :) honestly, I talked about the same thingk recently "lowmemory android driver not needed?" thread. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers