Hello, On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:30:00AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: ... > process chosen for oom kill. I know that you care about the latter. My > *only* suggestion was for the tunable to take a string instead of a > boolean so it is extensible for future use. This seems like something so > trivial. So, I'd much prefer it as boolean. It's a fundamentally binary property, either handle the cgroup as a unit when chosen as oom victim or not, nothing more. I don't see the (interface-wise) benefits of preparing for further oom policy extensions. If that happens, it should be through a separate interface file. The number of files isn't the most important criteria interface is designed on. Roman, can you rename it tho to memory.oom.group? That's how other interface files are scoped and it'd be better if we try to add further oom related interface files later. Thanks. -- tejun
