On Fri 29-01-16 07:26:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 28-01-16 20:24:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > [...] > > > I like the OOM reaper approach but I can't agree on merging the OOM reaper > > > without providing a guaranteed last resort at the same time. If you do want > > > to start the OOM reaper as simple as possible (without being bothered by > > > a lot of possible corner cases), please pursue a guaranteed last resort > > > at the same time. > > > > I am getting tired of this level of argumentation. oom_reaper in its > > current form is a step forward. I have acknowledged there are possible > > improvements doable on top but I do not see them necessary for the core > > part being merged. I am not trying to rush this in because I am very > > well aware of how subtle and complex all the interactions might be. > > So please stop your "we must have it all at once" attitude. This is > > nothing we have to rush in. We are not talking about a regression which > > has to be absolutely fixed in few days. > > I'm not asking you to merge a perfect version of oom_reaper from the > beginning. I know it is too difficult. Instead, I'm asking you to allow > using timeout based approaches (shown below) as temporarily workaround > because there are environments which cannot wait for oom_reaper to become > enough reliable. Would you please reply to the thread which proposed a > guaranteed last resort (shown below)? I really fail to see why you have to bring that part in this particular thread or in any other oom related discussion. I didn't get to read through that discussion and make my opinion yet. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>