On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:56:09 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-08 16:24:14]: > > > This 2 patches is for memcg's oom handling. > > > > At first, memcg's oom doesn't mean "no more resource" but means "we hit limit." > > Then, daemons/user shells out of a memcg can work even if it's under oom. > > So, if we have notifier and some more features, we can do something moderate > > rather than killing at oom. > > > > This patch includes > > [1/2] oom notifier for memcg (using evetfd framework of cgroups.) > > [2/2] oom killer disalibing and hooks for waitq and wake-up. > > > > When memcg's oom-killer is disabled, all tasks which request accountable memory > > will sleep in waitq. It will be waken up by user's action as > > - enlarge limit. (memory or memsw) > > - kill some tasks > > - move some tasks (account migration is enabled.) > > > > Hmm... I've not seen the waitq and wake-up patches, but does that mean > user space will control resumtion of tasks? > Yes. And what's useful in this behavior rathar than oom-kill(SIGKILL) by the kernel is that users can take coredump (by gcore at el.) and snapshot of all tasks's resource usage (by ps at el.) even if he has to kill a task. Thanks, -Kame -- 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>