On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:36:47 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > So the question I'd ask is > > > > What about my question? Why is your usersapce oom-handler "unresponsive"? > > > > If we have a per-memcg userspace oom handler, then it's absolutely > required that it either increase the hard limit of the oom memcg or kill a > task to free memory; anything else risks livelocking that memcg. At > the same time, the oom handler's memcg isn't really important: it may be > in a different memcg but it may be oom at the same time. If we risk > livelocking the memcg when it is oom and the oom killer cannot respond > (the only reason for the oom killer to exist in the first place), then > there's no guarantee that a userspace oom handler could respond under > livelock. So you're saying that your userspace oom-handler is in a memcg which is also oom? That this is the only situation you've observed in which the userspace oom-handler is "unresponsive"? -- 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>