[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170815125750.GB15892@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:57:50 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, <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 Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:18PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> 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?
I'm sorry, if it wasn't clear from my message, it's not about
the system-wide OOM vs the memcg-wide OOM, it's about the isolation.
In general, decision is made on memcg level first (based on oom_priority
and size), and only then on a task level (based on size and oom_score_adj).
Oom_score_adj affects which task inside the cgroup will be killed,
but we never compare tasks from different cgroups. This is what I mean,
when I'm saying, that oom_score_adj should not have a system-wide meaning.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists