On 3/21/22 20:57, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Nico Pache wrote: > >> We could proceed with the V3 approach; however if we are able to find a complete >> solution that keeps both functionalities (Concurrent OOM Reaping & Robust Futex) >> working, I dont see why we wouldnt go for it. > > Because semantically killing the process is, imo, the wrong thing to do. My > performance argument before however is bogus as the overhead of robust futexes > is pretty negligible within the lifetime of a lock. That said, the users still > have good(?) reasons for not wanting the lock holder to crash on them.
