linux-kernel - Re: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171006054325.uefqqiox4jzsjhjl@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 07:43:25 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        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: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

On Thu 05-10-17 15:02:18, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> I would need to add patches to add the "evaluate as a whole but do not 
> kill all" knob and a knob for "oom priority" so that userspace has the 
> same influence over a cgroup based comparison that it does with a process 
> based comparison to meet business goals.

I do not think 2 knobs would be really necessary for your usecase. If we
allow priorities on non-leaf memcgs then a non 0 priority on such a
memcg would mean that we have to check the cumulative consumption. You
can safely use kill all knob on top of that if you need.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs