On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:03:24AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > > Really? From what I know and worked on way back when: The reason was to be > > > > able to contain the affected application in a cpuset. Multiple apps may > > > > have been running in multiple cpusets on a large NUMA machine and the OOM > > > > condition in one cpuset should not affect the other. It also helped to > > > > isolate the application behavior causing the oom in numerous cases. > > > > > > > > Doesnt this requirement transfer to cgroups in the same way? > > > > > > We have per-node memory stats and plan to use them during the OOM victim > > > selection. Hopefully it can help. > > > > One of the OOM causes could be that memory was restricted to a certain > > node set. Killing the allocating task is (was?) default behavior in that > > case so that the task that has the restrictions is killed. Not any task > > that may not have the restrictions and woiuld not experience OOM. > > As I can see, it's not the default behavior these days. If we have a way > to select a victim between memcgs/tasks which are actually using > the corresponding type of memory, it's much better than to kill > an allocating task. Kill the whole set of processes constituting an app in a cgroup or so sounds good to me. -- 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
