[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180424123002.utwbm54mu46q6aqs@esperanza>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:30:02 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: introduce memory.min
Hi Roman,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> + memory.min
> + A read-write single value file which exists on non-root
> + cgroups. The default is "0".
> +
> + Hard memory protection. If the memory usage of a cgroup
> + is within its effective min boundary, the cgroup's memory
> + won't be reclaimed under any conditions. If there is no
> + unprotected reclaimable memory available, OOM killer
> + is invoked.
What will happen if all tasks attached to a cgroup are killed by OOM,
but its memory usage is still within memory.min? Will memory.min be
ignored then?
> +
> + Effective low boundary is limited by memory.min values of
> + all ancestor cgroups. If there is memory.min overcommitment
> + (child cgroup or cgroups are requiring more protected memory
> + than parent will allow), then each child cgroup will get
> + the part of parent's protection proportional to its
> + actual memory usage below memory.min.
> +
> + Putting more memory than generally available under this
> + protection is discouraged and may lead to constant OOMs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists