On Mon 25-11-19 19:37:59, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:08 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 25-11-19 05:14:53, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > We set memory.oom.group to make all processes in this memcg are killed by
> > > OOM killer to free more pages. In this case, it doesn't make sense to
> > > protect the pages with memroy.{min, low} again if they are set.
> >
> > I do not see why? What does group OOM killing has anything to do with
> > the reclaim protection? What is the actual problem you are trying to
> > solve?
> >
>
> The cgroup is treated as a indivisible workload when cgroup.oom.group
> is set and OOM killer is trying to kill a prcess in this cgroup.
Yes this is true.
> We set cgroup.oom.group is to guarantee the workload integrity, now
> that processes ara all killed, why keeps the page cache here?
Because an administrator has configured the reclaim protection in a
certain way and hopefully had a good reason to do that. We are not going
to override that configure just because there is on OOM killer invoked
and killed tasks in that memcg. The workload might get restarted and it
would run under a different constrains all of the sudden which is not
expected.
In short kernel should never silently change the configuration made by
an admistrator.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
