* David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-02-07 18:37:30]: > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > And write this fact: > > > > A > > / > > B > > / > > C > > > > When > > A.memory_oom_delay=1sec. > > B.memory_oom_delay=500msec > > C.memory_oom_delay=200msec > > > > If there are OOM in group C, C's oom_kill will be delayed for 200msec and > > a task in group C will be killed. > > > > If there are OOM in group B, B's oom_kill will be delayed for 200msec and > > a task in group B or C will be killed. > > > > If there are OOM in group A, A's oom_kill will be delayed for 1sec and > > a task in group A,B or C will be killed. > > > > oom_killer in the hierarchy is serialized by lock and happens one-by-one > > for avoiding a serial kill. So, above delay can be stacked. > > > > Ok, I'll add this to the comment that says changing > memory.oom_delay_millisecs does so for all children as well that was > already added in this version of the patch. > > I'll wait a couple days to see if Balbir or Daisuke have any additional > comments. > The patches look good to me from last time, Kamezawa-San had these comments even last time. I am OK with the changes proposed. -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>