On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:15:09PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 16-12-15 15:58:44, Andrew Morton wrote: > > It's hard to say how long declaration of oom should take. Correctness > > comes first. But what is "correct"? oom isn't a binary condition - > > there's a chance that if we keep churning away for another 5 minutes > > we'll be able to satisfy this allocation (but probably not the next > > one). There are tradeoffs between promptness-of-declaring-oom and > > exhaustiveness-in-avoiding-it. > > Yes, this is really hard to tell. What I wanted to achieve here is a > determinism - the same load should give comparable results. It seems > that there is an improvement in this regards. The time to settle is > much more consistent than with the original implementation. +1 Before that we couldn't even really make a meaningful statement about how long we are going to try - "as long as reclaim thinks it can maybe do some more, depending on heuristics". I think the best thing we can strive for with OOM is to make the rules simple and predictable. -- 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>