On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:29:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 11-09-17 13:44:39, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware. > > > > > > v8: > > > - Do not kill tasks with OOM_SCORE_ADJ -1000 > > > - Make the whole thing opt-in with cgroup mount option control > > > - Drop oom_priority for further discussions > > > > Nack, we specifically require oom_priority for this to function correctly, > > otherwise we cannot prefer to kill from low priority leaf memcgs as > > required. > > While I understand that your usecase might require priorities I do not > think this part missing is a reason to nack the cgroup based selection > and kill-all parts. This can be done on top. The only important part > right now is the current selection semantic - only leaf memcgs vs. size > of the hierarchy). I agree. > I strongly believe that comparing only leaf memcgs > is more straightforward and it doesn't lead to unexpected results as > mentioned before (kill a small memcg which is a part of the larger > sub-hierarchy). One of two main goals of this patchset is to introduce cgroup-level fairness: bigger cgroups should be affected more than smaller, despite the size of tasks inside. I believe the same principle should be used for cgroups. Also, the opposite will make oom_semantics more weird: it will mean kill all tasks, but also treat memcg as a leaf cgroup. > > I didn't get to read the new version of this series yet and hope to get > to it soon. Thanks! -- 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>
