[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > Even though the situation may not require a kill, the user still wants
> > to know that the memory hard limit was breached and the isolation
> > broken in order to prevent a kill. We just came really close and the
> You can observe that you are getting into troubles from fail counter
> already. The usability without more reclaim statistics is a bit
> questionable but you get a rough impression that something is wrong at
> least.

Agreed, but it seems like the appropriate mechanism for this is through
the memory.{,memsw.}usage_in_bytes notifiers which already exist.

> > fact that current is exiting is coincidental. Not everybody is having
> > OOM situations on a frequent basis and they might want to know when
> > they are redlining the system and that the same workload might blow up
> > the next time it's run.
> I am just concerned that signaling temporal OOM conditions which do not
> require any OOM killer action (user or kernel space) might be confusing.
> Userspace would have harder times to tell whether any action is required
> or not.

Completely agreed, in fact there is no reliable and non-racy way in
userspace to determine "is this a real oom condition that I must act upon
or can the kernel handle it?"

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-19 02:41    [W:0.107 / U:9.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site