[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
    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

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-27 08:45    [W:0.020 / U:37.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site