On Thursday 22 January 2009 08:58:43 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:38:21 +0530 > > Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > As Alan Cox suggested/wondered in this thread, > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/12/235 , this is a container group based > > approach to override the oom killer selection without losing all the > > benefits of the current oom killer heuristics and oom_adj interface. > > > > It adds a tunable oom.victim to the oom cgroup. The oom killer will kill > > the process using the usual badness value but only within the cgroup with > > the maximum value for oom.victim before killing any process from a cgroup > > with a lesser oom.victim number. Oom killing could be disabled by setting > > oom.victim=0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@xxxxxxx> > > Assume following > - the usar can tell "which process should be killed at first" > > What is the difference between oom_adj and this cgroup to users ? It is next to impossible to specify the order among say 10 memory hogging tasks using oom_adj. Using this oom-controller users can specify the exact order. > If oom_adj is hard to use, making it simpler is a good way, I think. > rather than adding new complication. > > It seems both of oom_adj and this cgroup will be hard-to-use functions > for usual system administrators. But no better idea than using memcg > and committing memory usage. > To use oom_adj effectively one should continuously monitor oom_score of all the processes, which is a complex moving target and keep on adjusting the oom_adj of many tasks which still cannot guarantee the order. This controller is deterministic and hence easier to use. Thanks Nikanth _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers