[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f769d03d-5743-b794-a249-bb52b408ab0e@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:20:18 +1000
From: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
On 08/15/2017 10:15 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Generally, oom_score_adj should have a meaning only on a cgroup level,
> so extending it to the system level doesn't sound as a good idea.
But wasn't the original purpose of oom_score (and oom_score_adj) to work
on a system level, aka "normal" OOM? Is there some peculiarity about
memcg OOM that I'm missing?
--
Aleksa Sarai
Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists