On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote: > > A subset of applications that wait on memory.oom_control don't disable > > the oom killer for that memcg and simply log or cleanup after the kernel > > oom killer kills a process to free memory. > > > > We need the ability to do this for system oom conditions as well, i.e. > > when the system is depleted of all memory and must kill a process. For > > convenience, this can use memcg since oom notifiers are already present. > > Using the memcg interface for "read-only" interface without any plan for > the "write" is only halfway solution. We want to handle global OOM in a > more user defined ways but we have to agree on the proper interface > first. I do not want to end up with something half baked with memcg and > a different interface to do the real thing just because memcg turns out > to be unsuitable. >
This patch isn't really a halfway solution, you can still determine if the open(O_WRONLY) succeeds or not to determine if that feature has been implemented. I'm concerned about disabling the oom killer entirely for system oom conditions, though, so I didn't implement it to be writable. I don't think we should be doing anything special in terms of "write" behavior for the root memcg memory.oom_control, so I'd argue against doing anything other than disabling the oom killer. That's scary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
