On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > Do you have an example, which can't be effectively handled by an approach > > > I'm suggesting? > > > > No, I do not have any which would be _explicitly_ requested but I do > > envision new requirements will emerge. The most probable one would be > > kill the youngest container because that would imply the least amount of > > work wasted. > > I agree, this a nice feature. It can be implemented in userspace > by setting oom_priority. > Yes, the "kill the newest memory cgroup as a tiebreak" is not strictly required in the kernel and no cgroup should depend on this implementation detail to avoid being killed if it shares the same memory.oom_priority as another cgroup. As you mention, it can be effectively implemented by userspace itself. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
