On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:45:14 +0900 (JST) yamamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: > > > having said that, if you decide to put too large tasks into > > > a cgroup with too small limit, i don't think that there are > > > many choices besides OOM-kill and allowing "exceed". > > > > > IMHO, allowing exceed is harmfull without changing the definition of "limit". > > "limit" is hard-limit, now, not soft-limit. Changing the defintion just for > > this is not acceptable for me. > > even with the current code, the "exceed" condition can be created > by simply lowering the limit. > (well, i know that some of your patches floating around change it.) > Yes, I write it now ;) Handling exceed contains some troubles - when resizing limit, to what extent exceed is allowed ? - Once exceed, no new page allocation can success and _some random process_ will die because of OOM. > > Maybe "move" under limit itself is crazy ops....Hmm... > > > > Should we allow task move when the destination cgroup is unlimited ? > > Isn't it useful ? > > i think it makes some sense. > > > > actually, i think that #3 and #5 are somewhat similar. > > > a big difference is that, while #5 shrinks the cgroup immediately, > > > #3 does it later. in case we need to do OOM-kill, i prefer to do it > > > sooner than later. > > > > > #3 will not cause OOM-killer, I hope...A user can notice memory shortage. > > we are talking about the case where a cgroup's working set is getting > hopelessly larger than its limit. i don't see why #3 will not > cause OOM-kill. can you explain? > just because #3 doesn't move resource, just drop. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers