Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] memcg: Low-limit reclaim

[Hugh Dickins]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 04:46:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 
> > In the other email I have suggested to add a knob with the configurable
> > default. Would you be OK with that?
> 
> No, I want to agree on whether we need that fallback code or not.  I'm
> not interested in merging code that you can't convince anybody else is
> needed.

I for one would welcome such a knob as Michal is proposing.

I thought it was long ago agreed that the low limit was going to fallback
when it couldn't be satisfied.  But you seem implacably opposed to that
as default, and I can well believe that Google is so accustomed to OOMing
that it is more comfortable with OOMing as the default.  Okay.  But I
would expect there to be many who want the attempt towards isolation that
low limit offers, without a collapse to OOM at the first misjudgement.

Hugh
--
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/