On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > The thing is that the hierarchical approach (as in v8), which are you pushing, > has it's own limitations, which we've discussed in details earlier. There are > reasons why v12 is different, and we can't really simple go back. I mean if > there are better ideas how to resolve concerns raised in discussions around v8, > let me know, but ignoring them is not an option. > I'm not ignoring them, I have stated that we need the ability to protect important cgroups on the system without oom disabling all attached processes. If that is implemented as a memory.oom_score_adj with the same semantics as /proc/pid/oom_score_adj, i.e. a proportion of available memory (the limit), it can also address the issues pointed out with the hierarchical approach in v8. If this is not the case, could you elaborate on what your exact concern is and why we do not care that users can completely circumvent victim selection by creating child cgroups for other controllers? Since the ability to protect important cgroups on the system may require a heuristic change, I think it should be solved now rather than constantly insisting that we can make this patchset complete later and in the meantime force the user to set all attached processes to be oom disabled. -- 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>
