On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree > > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more > > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value. > > > > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're > > inheriting it; or not inherit. > > Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for > oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same > unless they explicitly state otherwise. Not sure I understand why. Setting memory.oom_group on a child memcg has absolutely no meaning until memory.max is also set. In case of OOM scoped to the parent memcg or above, parent's value defines the behavior. If a user decides to create a separate OOM domain (be setting the hard memory limit), he/she can also make a decision on how OOM event should be handled. 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>
