On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:48:53 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > seems to be hard to use. No one can estimate "milisecond" for avoidling > > OOM-kill. I think this is very bad. Nack to this feature itself. > > > > There's no estimation that is really needed, we simply need to be able to > stall long enough that we'll eventually kill "something" if userspace > fails to act. > Why we have to think of usermode failure by mis configuration or user mode bug ? It's a work of Middleware in usual. Please make libcgroup or libvirt more useful. > > If you want something smart _in kernel_, please implement followings. > > > > - When hit oom, enlarge limit to some extent. > > - All processes in cgroup should be stopped. > > - A helper application will be called by usermode_helper(). > > - When a helper application exit(), automatically release all processes > > to run again. > > > > Hmm, that's a _lot_ of policy to be implemented in the kernel itself and > comes at the cost of either being faulty (if the limit cannot be > increased) or harmful (when increasing the limit is detrimental to other > memcg). > Or runnking a helper function in "root" cgroup which has no limit at all. 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>