On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > What do you think about making pagefaults use out_of_memory() directly and > > respecting the sysctl_panic_on_oom settings? > > > > I don't think this patch is good. Because several memcg can > cause oom at the same time independently, system-wide oom locking is > unsuitable. BTW, what I doubt is much more fundamental thing. > We want to lock all populated zones with ZONE_OOM_LOCKED to avoid needlessly killing more than one task regardless of how many memcgs are oom. > What I doubt at most is "why VM_FAULT_OOM is necessary ? or why we have > to call oom_killer when page fault returns it". > Is there someone who returns VM_FAULT_OOM without calling page allocator > and oom-killer helps something in such situation ? > Before we invoked the oom killer for VM_FAULT_OOM, we simply sent a SIGKILL to current because we simply don't have memory to fault the page in, it's better to select a memory-hogging task to kill based on badness() than to constantly kill current which may not help in the long term. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>