On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:21:31AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Yes, sure, this looks good to me. Thanks!
