Hello, Michal. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. Oh yeah, sure, I have no fundamental objections against improving the in-kernel system OOM handler, including making it cgroup-aware which seems like a natural extension to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>