On Fri 15-09-17 12:55:55, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > But then you just enforce a structural restriction on your configuration > > > because > > > root > > > / \ > > > A D > > > /\ > > > B C > > > > > > is a different thing than > > > root > > > / | \ > > > B C D > > > > > > > I actually don't have a strong argument against an approach to select > > largest leaf or kill-all-set memcg. I think, in practice there will be > > no much difference. > > > > The only real concern I have is that then we have to do the same with > > oom_priorities (select largest priority tree-wide), and this will limit > > an ability to enforce the priority by parent cgroup. > > > > Yes, oom_priority cannot select the largest priority tree-wide for exactly > that reason. We need the ability to control from which subtree the kill > occurs in ancestor cgroups. If multiple jobs are allocated their own > cgroups and they can own memory.oom_priority for their own subcontainers, > this becomes quite powerful so they can define their own oom priorities. > Otherwise, they can easily override the oom priorities of other cgroups. Could you be more speicific about your usecase? What would be a problem If we allow to only increase priority in children (like other hierarchical controls). -- 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>
