Re: [patch 2/2] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification forsystem oom

[Michal Hocko]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/