[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180129191139.GA1121507@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:11:39 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
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 v2 2/3] mm, memcg: replace cgroup aware oom killer
mount option with tunable
Hello, Michal.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:46:57AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -1292,7 +1292,11 @@ the memory controller considers only cgroups belonging to the sub-tree
> of the OOM'ing cgroup.
>
> The root cgroup is treated as a leaf memory cgroup, so it's compared
> -with other leaf memory cgroups and cgroups with oom_group option set.
> +with other leaf memory cgroups and cgroups with oom_group option
> +set. Due to internal implementation restrictions the size of the root
> +cgroup is a cumulative sum of oom_badness of all its tasks (in other
> +words oom_score_adj of each task is obeyed). This might change in the
> +future.
Thanks, we can definitely use more documentation. However, it's a bit
difficult to follow. Maybe expand it to a separate paragraph on the
current behavior with a clear warning that the default OOM heuristics
is subject to changes?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists