On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 27-10-17 13:50:47, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> > Why is OOM-disabling a thing? Why isn't this simply a "kill everything >> > else before you kill me"? It's crashing the kernel in trying to >> > protect a userspace application. How is that not insane? >> >> In parallel to other discussion, I think we should definitely move >> from "completely oom-disabled" semantics to something similar to "kill >> me last" semantics. Is there any objection to this idea? > > Could you be more specific what you mean? > I get the impression that the main reason behind the complexity of oom-killer is allowing processes to be protected from the oom-killer i.e. disabling oom-killing a process by setting /proc/[pid]/oom_score_adj to -1000. So, instead of oom-disabling, add an interface which will let users/admins to set a process to be oom-killed as a last resort. -- 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>
