On Thu 29-06-17 14:45:13, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:53:57AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 21-06-17 22:19:15, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > We want to limit the number of tasks which are having an access > > > to the memory reserves. To ensure the progress it's enough > > > to have one such process at the time. > > > > > > If we need to kill the whole cgroup, let's give an access to the > > > memory reserves only to the first process in the list, which is > > > (usually) the biggest process. > > > This will give us good chances that all other processes will be able > > > to quit without an access to the memory reserves. > > > > I don't like this to be honest. Is there any reason to go the reduced > > memory reserves access to oom victims I was suggesting earlier [1]? > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1472723464-22866-2-git-send-email-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx > > I've nothing against your approach. What's the state of this patchset? > Do you plan to bring it upstream? Just the specific patch I have linked should be sufficient for what you need here. The patchset had some issues which I didn't have time to fix and as such the need for the above patch was not a high priority as well. -- 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>
