On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 02:18:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Does this sound something that you would be interested in? I can spend > som more time on it if it is worthwhile. Before you invest too much time in this, I think the rationale for changing the current behavior so far is very weak. The ideas that have been floated around in this thread barely cross into nice-to-have territory, and as a result the acceptable additional complexity to implement them is very low as well. Making the OOM behavior less consistent, or introducing very rare problem behavior (e.g. merely reducing the probability of syscalls returning -ENOMEM instead of fully eliminating it, re-adding avenues for deadlocks, no matter how rare, etc.) is a non-starter.
