On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks! > > > Hm. But I'm not sure how this will be used. > > > > Since this patch hasn't been added to -mm even with your acked-by, I'm > assuming Andrew is waiting for an answer to this :) I thought it was > fairly well covered in the changelog, but I'll elaborate: > > We can already give userspace a grace period to act before oom killing a > task by utilizing memory.oom_control. That's not what the oom killer > delay addresses, however. This addresses a very specific (and real) > problem that occurs when userspace wants that grace period but is unable > to respond, for whatever reason, to either increase the hard limit or > allow the oom kill to proceed. The possibility of that happening would > cause that memcg to livelock because no forward progress could be made > when oom, which is a negative result. We don't have that possibility with > the global oom killer since the kernel will always choose to act if memory > freeing is not imminent: in other words, since we've opened the window for > livelock because of an unreliable userspace via a kernel feature -- namely > memory.oom_control -- then it's only responsible to provide an alternate > means to configure the cgroup for the same grace period without risking > livelock. > Andrew, can this be merged in -mm? -- 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>