On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:43:38AM -0800, David Rientjes (rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > For example, if your task triggers an oom as the result of its exclusive > cpuset placement, the oom killer should prefer to kill a task within that > cpuset to allow for future memory freeing. This it not true for all cases. What if you do need to start this task and free something else outside the given set? This should be an administrative decision and not forced by the kernel. We used to have it that way, but it does not mean that it is the only correct way to do the things. > So, with your proposal, an administrator can specify the oom priority of > an entire aggregate of tasks but the behavior may not be desired for a > cpuset-constrained oom, while it may be perfectly legitimate for a global > unconstrained oom. In this case administrator will not do this. It is up to him to decide and not some inner kernel policy. -- Evgeniy Polyakov _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
