Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:

> > I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion: it's necessary because any 
> > process handling the oom condition will need memory to do anything useful.  
> > How else would a process that is handling a system oom condition, for 
> > example, be able to obtain a list of processes, check memory usage, issue 
> > a kill, do any logging, collect heap or smaps samples, or signal processes 
> > to throttle incoming requests without having access to memory itself?  The 
> > system is oom.
> 
> We're now just re-starting the whole discussion with all context lost.
> How is this a good idea?  We talked about all this previously.  If you
> have something to add, add there *please* so that other people can
> track it too.
> 

I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you 
missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not 
include support for system oom handling.  Nothing that I wrote above was 
possible with the first patchset.  This is the complete support.

> That's completely fine but if that's your intention please at least
> prefix the patchset with RFC and explicitly state that no consensus
> has been reached (well, it was more like negative consensus from what
> I remember) in the description so that it can't be picked up
> accidentally.
> 

This patchset provides a solution to a real-world problem that is not 
solved with any other patchset.  I expect it to be reviewed as any other 
patchset, it's not an "RFC" from my perspective: it's a proposal for 
inclusion.  Don't worry, Andrew is not going to apply anything 
accidentally.
--
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/