On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Agreed, and I think the big downside of doing it with the loadable module > > suggestion is that you can't implement such a wide variety of different > > policies in modules. Each of our users who own a memcg tree on our > > systems may want to have their own policy and they can't load a module at > > runtime or ship with the kernel. > > But those users care about their local (memcg) OOM, don't they? So they > do not need any module and all they want is to get a notification. Sure, but I think the question is more of the benefit of doing it in the kernel as opposed to userspace. If we implement the necessary mechanisms that allow userspace to reliably handle these situations, I don't see much of a benefit to modules other than for separating code amongst multiple files in the source. I don't think we want to ship multiple different oom policies because then userspace that cares about it has to figure out what's in effect and what it can do with what's available. I'd argue that a the key functionality that I've already described (system oom notification, memcg reserves, timeout) allow for any policy to be defined reliably in userspace. -- 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>