Hi Evgeniy, > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:51:27PM -0800, David Rientjes (rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Yeah, I proposed /dev/mem_notify being made as a client of cgroups there > > in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123200623628685 > > > > How do you replace the oom killer's capability of giving a killed task > > access to memory reserves with TIF_MEMDIE in userspace? > > /dev/mem_notify is a great idea, but please do not limit existing > oom-killer in its ability to do the job and do not rely on application's > ability to send a SIGKILL which will not kill tasks in unkillable state > contrary to oom-killer. I'd like to respect your requiremnt. but I also would like to know why you like deterministic hierarchy oom than notification. I think one of problem is, current patch description is a bit poor and don't describe from administrator view. Could you please sort the discssion out and explain your requirement detail? otherwise (I guess) this discussion don't reach people agreement. I don't like the implementation idea vs another idea discussion. it often don't make productive discussion. I'd like to sort out people requrement. otherwise I can't review the patch fill requirement or not. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers