Re: [PATCH] fs, mm: account filp and names caches to kmemcg

[Shakeel Butt]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 27-10-17 13:50:47, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> > Why is OOM-disabling a thing? Why isn't this simply a "kill everything
>> > else before you kill me"? It's crashing the kernel in trying to
>> > protect a userspace application. How is that not insane?
>>
>> In parallel to other discussion, I think we should definitely move
>> from "completely oom-disabled" semantics to something similar to "kill
>> me last" semantics. Is there any objection to this idea?
>
> Could you be more specific what you mean?
>

I get the impression that the main reason behind the complexity of
oom-killer is allowing processes to be protected from the oom-killer
i.e. disabling oom-killing a process by setting
/proc/[pid]/oom_score_adj to -1000. So, instead of oom-disabling, add
an interface which will let users/admins to set a process to be
oom-killed as a last resort.