From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88914C282CE for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6E62184B for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:16:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1554985001; bh=RETkbUAKWSStRRemgTx5lYN/eP08HJMZMrTfdszVBXA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=IyPYCYGhnb+YqLGAehOXKzlXt4FRN7O7XVch2YJJSc/pEErEEmWrJPKh4+WqsTJZQ JtizPrY/QaQfWv2J/LZHVWBpVDuBsNW6UQK4a7//4qoewNFoPCksXtRS39o1IyLRSh f+Ze2x+ReWq0lpBwTP5r+OJr/4id/VLdSDwPhtaI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726599AbfDKMQk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:16:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50314 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726073AbfDKMQj (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:16:39 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80279AC4C; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:16:33 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Rik van Riel Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dancol@google.com, jannh@google.com, minchan@kernel.org, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, kernel-team@android.com, rientjes@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, shakeelb@google.com, jrdr.linux@gmail.com, yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, timmurray@google.com, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com, christian@brauner.io, ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Message-ID: <20190411121633.GV10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190411014353.113252-1-surenb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 11-04-19 07:51:21, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 18:43 -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan via Lsf-pc wrote: > > The time to kill a process and free its memory can be critical when > > the > > killing was done to prevent memory shortages affecting system > > responsiveness. > > The OOM killer is fickle, and often takes a fairly > long time to trigger. Speeding up what happens after > that seems like the wrong thing to optimize. > > Have you considered using something like oomd to > proactively kill tasks when memory gets low, so > you do not have to wait for an OOM kill? AFAIU, this is the point here. They probably have a user space OOM killer implementation and want to achieve killing to be as swift as possible. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs