Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:43:38AM -0800, David Rientjes (rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> For example, if your task triggers an oom as the result of its exclusive 
> cpuset placement, the oom killer should prefer to kill a task within that 
> cpuset to allow for future memory freeing.

This it not true for all cases. What if you do need to start this task
and free something else outside the given set? This should be an
administrative decision and not forced by the kernel. We used to have it
that way, but it does not mean that it is the only correct way to do the
things.

> So, with your proposal, an administrator can specify the oom priority of 
> an entire aggregate of tasks but the behavior may not be desired for a 
> cpuset-constrained oom, while it may be perfectly legitimate for a global 
> unconstrained oom.

In this case administrator will not do this. It is up to him to decide
and not some inner kernel policy.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/