Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> 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?
> 

There're a couple of proposals that have been discussed recently that 
share some functional behavior.

One is the cgroup oom notifier that allows you to attach a task to wait on 
an oom condition for a collection of tasks.  That allows userspace to 
respond to the condition by droping caches, adding nodes to a cpuset, 
elevating memory controller limits, sending a signal, etc.  It can also 
defer to the kernel oom killer as a last resort.

The other is /dev/mem_notify that allows you to poll() on a device file 
and be informed of low memory events.  This can include the cgroup oom 
notifier behavior when a collection of tasks is completely out of memory, 
but can also warn when such a condition may be imminent.  I suggested that 
this be implemented as a client of cgroups so that different handlers can 
be responsible for different aggregates of tasks.

I think the latter is a much more powerful tool and includes all the 
behavior of the former.  It preserves the oom killer as a last resort for 
the kernel and defers all preference killing or lowmem responses to 
userspace.
--
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/