On Tue 05-09-17 20:16:09, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:12:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > Then we should probably hide corresponding > > > cgroup interface (oom_group and oom_priority knobs) by default, > > > and it feels as unnecessary complication and is overall against > > > cgroup v2 interface design. > > > > Why. If we care enough, we could simply return EINVAL when those knobs > > are written while the corresponding strategy is not used. > > It doesn't look as a nice default interface. I do not have a strong opinion on this. A printk_once could explain why the knob is ignored and instruct the admin how to enable the feature completely. > > > > I think we should instead go with > > > > oom_strategy=[alloc_task,biggest_task,cgroup] > > > > > > It would be a really nice interface; although I've no idea how to implement it: > > > "alloc_task" is an existing sysctl, which we have to preserve; > > > > I would argue that we should simply deprecate and later drop the sysctl. > > I _strongly_ suspect anybody is using this. If yes it is not that hard > > to change the kernel command like rather than select the sysctl. > > I agree. And if so, why do we need a new interface for an useless feature? Well, I won't be opposed just deprecating the sysfs and only add a "real" kill-allocate strategy if somebody explicitly asks for it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
