On 02/03/23 12:24, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 02-03-23 10:18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> On 02/03/23 08:45, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > On Wed 01-03-23 18:23:19, Valentin Schneider wrote: > [...] >> >> I want cgroupv1 to die as much as the next person, but in that specific >> >> situation I kinda need cgroupv1 to behave somewhat sanely on RT with >> >> threshold events :/ >> > >> > Could you expand on the usecase? >> > >> >> In this case it's just some middleware leveraging memcontrol cgroups and >> setting up callbacks for in-cgroup OOM events. This is a supported feature >> in cgroupv2, so this isn't a problem of cgroupv1 vs cgroupv2 feature >> parity, but rather one of being in a transitional phase where the >> middleware itself hasn't fully migrated to using cgroupv2. > > How is this related to the RT kernel config? memcg OOM vs any RT > assumptions do not really get along well AFAICT. > Yep. AIUI the tasks actually relying on RT guarantees DTRT (at least regarding memory allocations, or lack thereof), but other non-RT-reliant tasks on other CPUs come and go, hence the memcg involvement. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
