On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Hi David! > > Thank you for sharing this! > > It's very interesting, and it looks like, > it's not that far from what I've suggested. > > So we definitily need to come up with some common solution. > Hi Roman, Yes, definitely. I could post a series of patches to do everything that was listed in my email sans the fully inclusive kmem accounting, which may be pursued at a later date, if it would be helpful to see where there is common ground? Another question is what you think about userspace oom handling? We implement our own oom kill policies in userspace for both the system and for user-controlled memcg hierarchies because it often does not match the kernel implementation and there is some action that can be taken other than killing a process. Have you tried to implement functionality to do userspace oom handling, or are you considering it? This is the main motivation behind allowing an oom delay to be configured. -- 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>
