On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > > > index dec5afdaa36d..22108f31e09d 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ v1 is available under Documentation/cgroup-v1/. > > > 5-2-1. Memory Interface Files > > > 5-2-2. Usage Guidelines > > > 5-2-3. Memory Ownership > > > + 5-2-4. Cgroup-aware OOM Killer > > > > Random curiousness, why cgroup-aware oom killer and not memcg-aware oom > > killer? > > I don't think we use the term "memcg" somewhere in v2 docs. > Do you think that "Memory cgroup-aware OOM killer" is better? > I think it would be better to not describe it as its own entity, but rather a part of how the memory cgroup works, so simply describing it in section 5-2, perhaps as its own subsection, as how the oom killer works when using the memory cgroup is sufficient. I wouldn't separate it out as a distinct cgroup feature in the documentation. > > > + cgroups. The default is "0". > > > + > > > + Defines whether the OOM killer should treat the cgroup > > > + as a single entity during the victim selection. > > > > Isn't this true independent of the memory.oom_kill_all_tasks setting? > > The cgroup aware oom killer will consider memcg's as logical units when > > deciding what to kill with or without memory.oom_kill_all_tasks, right? > > > > I think you cover this fact in the cgroup aware oom killer section below > > so this might result in confusion if described alongside a setting of > > memory.oom_kill_all_tasks. > > I assume this is fixed so that it's documented that memory cgroups are considered logical units by the oom killer and that memory.oom_kill_all_tasks is separate? The former defines the policy on how a memory cgroup is targeted and the latter defines the mechanism it uses to free memory. > > > + If set, OOM killer will kill all belonging tasks in > > > + corresponding cgroup is selected as an OOM victim. > > > > Maybe > > > > "If set, the OOM killer will kill all threads attached to the memcg if > > selected as an OOM victim." > > > > is better? > > Fixed to the following (to conform with core v2 concepts): > If set, OOM killer will kill all processes attached to the cgroup > if selected as an OOM victim. > Thanks. > > > +Cgroup-aware OOM Killer > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > + > > > +Cgroup v2 memory controller implements a cgroup-aware OOM killer. > > > +It means that it treats memory cgroups as first class OOM entities. > > > + > > > +Under OOM conditions the memory controller tries to make the best > > > +choise of a victim, hierarchically looking for the largest memory > > > +consumer. By default, it will look for the biggest task in the > > > +biggest leaf cgroup. > > > + > > > +Be default, all cgroups have oom_priority 0, and OOM killer will > > > +chose the largest cgroup recursively on each level. For non-root > > > +cgroups it's possible to change the oom_priority, and it will cause > > > +the OOM killer to look athe the priority value first, and compare > > > +sizes only of cgroups with equal priority. > > > > Maybe some description of "largest" would be helpful here? I think you > > could briefly describe what is accounted for in the decisionmaking. > > I'm afraid that it's too implementation-defined to be described. > Do you have an idea, how to describe it without going too much into details? > The point is that "largest cgroup" is ambiguous here: largest in what sense? The cgroup with the largest number of processes attached? Using the largest amount of memory? I think the documentation should clearly define that the oom killer selects the memory cgroup that has the most memory managed at each level. -- 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
