[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1709210128020.10026@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists