From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752824AbaCFVYD (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:24:03 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:61127 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751602AbaCFVX7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:23:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:23:57 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Tejun Heo cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Mel Gorman , Oleg Nesterov , Rik van Riel , Jianguo Wu , Tim Hockin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling In-Reply-To: <20140306211136.GA17902@htj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: References: <20140306204923.GF14033@htj.dyndns.org> <20140306205911.GG14033@htj.dyndns.org> <20140306211136.GA17902@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.