Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg, oom: unmark under_oom after the oom killer is done

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2023/10/3 15:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-09-23 11:03:23, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> [...]
>>>> for example, we want to run processes in the group but those parametes related to 
>>>> memory allocation is hard to decide, so use the notifications to inform us that we
>>>> need to adjust the paramters automatically and we don't need to create the new processes
>>>> manually.
>>>
>>> I do understand that but OOM is just way too late to tune anything
>>> upon. Cgroup v2 has a notion of high limit which can throttle memory
>>> allocations way before the hard limit is set and this along with PSI
>>> metrics could give you a much better insight on the memory pressure
>>> in a memcg.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestion. We will try to use memory.high instead.
> 
> OK, is the patch still required? 
Yes
As I've said I am not strongly opposed,
> it is just that the justification is rather weak.
> 



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux