Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753889AbZA0H0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:26:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752152AbZA0H0O (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:26:14 -0500 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:40023 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752145AbZA0H0O (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:26:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:56:07 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Alan Cox , Nikanth Karthikesan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Torvalds , Arve Hj?nnev?g , Evgeniy Polyakov , Andrew Morton , Chris Snook , Linus@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, Paul Menage Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller Message-ID: <20090127072607.GM504@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090126195431.GC504@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090126195622.1d5bf488@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090127155825.D476.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090127155825.D476.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2030 Lines: 47 * KOSAKI Motohiro [2009-01-27 16:02:34]: > Hi > > > > > As Alan Cox suggested/wondered in this thread, > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/12/235 , this is a container group based approach > > > > to override the oom killer selection without losing all the benefits of the > > > > current oom killer heuristics and oom_adj interface. > > > > > > > > It adds a tunable oom.victim to the oom cgroup. The oom killer will kill the > > > > process using the usual badness value but only within the cgroup with the > > > > maximum value for oom.victim before killing any process from a cgroup with a > > > > lesser oom.victim number. Oom killing could be disabled by setting > > > > oom.victim=0. > > > > > > Looking at the patch, I wonder if it is time for user space OOM > > > notifications that were discussed during the containers mini-summit. > > > The idea is to inform user space about OOM's and let user space take > > > action, if no action is taken, the default handler kicks in. > > > > The OLPC folks (Marcelo I believe) posted code for this and I believe > > OLPC is using this functionality internally so that under memory pressure > > (before we actually hit OOM) programs can respond by doing stuff like > > evicting caches. > I did see the patches on linux-mm, but a more generic cgroup patch would help both cases, in the absence of cgroups, the default cgroup will contain all tasks and can carry out the handling. > Confused. > > As far as I know, people want the method of flexible cache treating. > but oom seems less flexible than userland notification. > > Why do you think notification is bad? I did not find Alan's message confusing or stating that notification was bad, but I might be misreading it. -- Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/