On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote: > David was proposing memory reserves for memcg userspace OOM handlers. > I found the idea interesting at first but I am getting more and more > skeptical about fully supporting oom handling from within under-oom > group usecase. Google is using this setup and we should discuss what is > the best approach longterm because the same thing can be achieved by a > proper memcg hierarchy as well. > > While we are at memcg OOM it seems that we cannot find an easy consensus > on when is the line when the userspace should be notified about OOM [1]. > > I would also like to continue discussing user defined OOM policies. > The last attempt to resurrect the discussion [2] ended up without any > strong conclusion but there seem to be some opposition against direct > handling of the global OOM from userspace as being too subtle and > dangerous. Also using memcg interface doesn't seem to be welcome warmly. > This leaves us with either loadable modules approach or a generic filter > mechanism which haven't been discussed that much. Or something else? > I hope we can move forward finally. > Google is interested in this topic and has been the main motivation for userspace oom handlers; we would like to attend for this discussion. David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>, systems software, senior staff Kamil Yurtsever <kyurtsever@xxxxxxxxxx>, systems software Thanks. -- 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>