[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod4=+GVg+hrT4ubp9P4b+LUZ+q9mz4ztC=Fc_cmTZmvpcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:45:18 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
> I am sorry to cut the rest of your proposal because it simply goes over
> the scope of the proposed solution while the usecase you are mentioning
> is still possible. If we want to compare intermediate nodes (which seems
> to be the case) then we can always provide a knob to opt-in - be it your
> oom_gang or others.
In the Roman's proposed solution we can already force the comparison
of intermediate nodes using 'oom_group', I am just requesting to
separate the killall semantics from it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists