Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugetlb memcg accounting

[Johannes Weiner]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 04:58:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Also there is not OOM as hugetlb pages are costly requests and we do not
> invoke the oom killer.

Ah good point.

That seems like a policy choice we could make. However, since hugetlb
users are already set up for and come to expect SIGBUS for physical
failure as well as hugetlb_cgroup limits, we should have memcg follow
established precedent and leave the OOM killer out.

Agree that a sentence in the changelog about this makes sense though.