[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171003124936.GA28904@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:49:36 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
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: [v9 4/5] mm, oom: add cgroup v2 mount option for cgroup-aware
OOM killer
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:50:36PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 27-09-17 14:09:35, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Add a "groupoom" cgroup v2 mount option to enable the cgroup-aware
> > OOM killer. If not set, the OOM selection is performed in
> > a "traditional" per-process way.
> >
> > The behavior can be changed dynamically by remounting the cgroupfs.
>
> I do not have a strong preference about this. I would just be worried
> that it is usually systemd which tries to own the whole hierarchy
I actually like this fact.
It gives us the opportunity to change the default behavior for most users
at the point when we'll be sure that new behavior is better; but at the same
time we'll save full compatibility on the kernel level.
With growing popularity of memory cgroups, I don't think that hiding
this functionality with a boot option makes any sense. It's just not
this type of feature, that should be hidden.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists