[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180125081134.GL28465@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:11:34 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
kernel-team@...com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 3/4] mm, memcg: replace memory.oom_group with policy
tunable
On Wed 24-01-18 14:08:05, Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> Can we please try to narrow the scope of this issue by concentrating on
> the userspace interfaces? David believes that the mount option and
> memory.oom_group will disappear again in the near future, others
> disagree.
Mount option is the cgroups maintainers call. And they seemed to be OK
with it.
I've tried to explain that oom_group is something that is semantically
sane and something we want to support because there are workloads which
simply do not work properly when only a subset is torn down. As such it
is not an API hazard AFAICS.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists