On Thu 14-11-13 15:26:55, David Rientjes wrote: > A subset of applications that wait on memory.oom_control don't disable > the oom killer for that memcg and simply log or cleanup after the kernel > oom killer kills a process to free memory. > > We need the ability to do this for system oom conditions as well, i.e. > when the system is depleted of all memory and must kill a process. For > convenience, this can use memcg since oom notifiers are already present.
Using the memcg interface for "read-only" interface without any plan for the "write" is only halfway solution. We want to handle global OOM in a more user defined ways but we have to agree on the proper interface first. I do not want to end up with something half baked with memcg and a different interface to do the real thing just because memcg turns out to be unsuitable. And to be honest, the more I am thinking about memcg based interface the stronger is my feeling that it is unsuitable for the user defined OOM policies. But that should be discussed properly (I will send a RFD in the follow up days). [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
