From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757940Ab3K1LzT (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:55:19 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]:62584 "EHLO mail-ea0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660Ab3K1LzE (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:55:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:54:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Thelen , Glauber Costa , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Joern Engel , Hugh Dickins , LKML Subject: Re: user defined OOM policies Message-ID: <20131128115458.GK2761@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20131119131400.GC20655@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20131119134007.GD20655@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20131120152251.GA18809@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 20-11-13 19:33:00, David Rientjes wrote: [...] > Agreed, and I think the big downside of doing it with the loadable module > suggestion is that you can't implement such a wide variety of different > policies in modules. Each of our users who own a memcg tree on our > systems may want to have their own policy and they can't load a module at > runtime or ship with the kernel. But those users care about their local (memcg) OOM, don't they? So they do not need any module and all they want is to get a notification. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs