On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:18PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 08/15/2017 10:15 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > Generally, oom_score_adj should have a meaning only on a cgroup level, > > so extending it to the system level doesn't sound as a good idea. > > But wasn't the original purpose of oom_score (and oom_score_adj) to work on > a system level, aka "normal" OOM? Is there some peculiarity about memcg OOM > that I'm missing? I'm sorry, if it wasn't clear from my message, it's not about the system-wide OOM vs the memcg-wide OOM, it's about the isolation. In general, decision is made on memcg level first (based on oom_priority and size), and only then on a task level (based on size and oom_score_adj). Oom_score_adj affects which task inside the cgroup will be killed, but we never compare tasks from different cgroups. This is what I mean, when I'm saying, that oom_score_adj should not have a system-wide meaning. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
