On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > As said in other email. We can make priorities hierarchical (in the same > > sense as hard limit or others) so that children cannot override their > > parent. > > You mean they can set the knob to any value, but parent's value is enforced, > if it's greater than child's value? > > If so, this sounds logical to me. Then we have size-based comparison and > priority-based comparison with similar rules, and all use cases are covered. > > Ok, can we stick with this design? > Then I'll return oom_priorities in place, and post a (hopefully) final version. > I just want to make sure that we are going with your original implementation here: that oom_priority is only effective for compare sibling memory cgroups and nothing beyond that. The value alone has no relationship to any ancestor. We can't set oom_priority based on the priorities of any other memory cgroups other than our own siblings because we have no control over how those change. -- 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>
