On Fri 15-04-16 00:03:31, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I would rather be explicit that we _do not care_ > > about these configurations. It is just PITA maintain and it doesn't make > > any sense. So rather than trying to document all the weird thing that > > might happen I would welcome a warning "mm shared with OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN > > task. Something is broken in your configuration!" > > Would you please stop rejecting configurations which do not match your values? Can you point out a single real life example where the above configuration would make a sense? This is not about _my_ values. This is about general _sanity_. If two/more entities share the mm and they disagree about their OOM priorities then something is clearly broken. Don't you think? How can the OOM killer do anything sensible here? The API we have created is broken because it allows broken configurations too easily. It is too late to fix it though so we can only rely on admins to use it sensibly. So please try to step back and think about whether it actually make sense to make the oom even more complex/confusing for something that gives little (if any) sense. -- 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>