Thread (79 messages) 79 messages, 8 authors, 2017-10-02

Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer

From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Date: 2017-09-21 08:30:49
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
quoted
As said in other email. We can make priorities hierarchical (in the same
sense as hard limit or others) so that children cannot override their
parent.
You mean they can set the knob to any value, but parent's value is enforced,
if it's greater than child's value?

If so, this sounds logical to me. Then we have size-based comparison and
priority-based comparison with similar rules, and all use cases are covered.

Ok, can we stick with this design?
Then I'll return oom_priorities in place, and post a (hopefully) final version.
I just want to make sure that we are going with your original 
implementation here: that oom_priority is only effective for compare 
sibling memory cgroups and nothing beyond that.  The value alone has no 
relationship to any ancestor.  We can't set oom_priority based on the 
priorities of any other memory cgroups other than our own siblings because 
we have no control over how those change.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help