Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 22:52:51 +0300
Message-Id: <CPQH35GSU0TW.3KU1UVKUYFI0E@hardclanz>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC] SIGOOM Proposal
From:   "Arseniy Lesin" <emptiedsoul@hardclanz.org>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
References: <CPPXX7JYJGIE.3F2R53GC3ULGZ@hardclanz>
 <Y7+se9vpA7JB3Mmm@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Y7+se9vpA7JB3Mmm@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

> It's actually worse than this.  The problem is space in the signal
> mask.
Yeah, i've realized it right after sending my letter first time.

I am going to use Willy's approach to use prctl() to enable process to
choose a signal for OOM event.

> AIX had a similar SIGDANGER signal which was sent to all processes
> when memory was low.  By default, it was ignored, but processes that
> were aware of it could use this as an opportunity to shrink their
> memory footprint.
Now should we go the same way and send SIGOOM to all receiving processes
or keep it targeted? Make it configurable?

Thanks.