On Thu 12-12-13 09:21:56, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > There'd still be all the bells and whistles to configure and monitor > system-level OOM and if there's justified need for improvements, we > surely can and should do that; You weren't on the CC of the original thread which has started here https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/19/191. And the original request for discussion was more about user defined _policies_ for the global OOM rather than user space global OOM handler. I feel that there are usacases where the current "kill a single task based on some calculations" is far from optimal which leads to hacks which try to cope with after oom condition somehow gracefully. I do agree with you that pulling oom handling sounds too dangerous even with all the code that it would need and I feel we should go a different path than (ab)using memcg.oom_control interface for that. I still think we need to have a way to tell the global OOM killer what to do. [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>