[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807231331510.105582@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 3/6] mm, memcg: add hierarchical usage oom
policy
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote:
> > And "tree" is different. It actually changes how the selection algorithm works,
> > and sub-tree settings do matter in this case.
> >
>
> "Tree" is considering the entity as a single indivisible memory consumer,
> it is compared with siblings based on its hierarhical usage. It has
> cgroup oom policy.
>
> It would be possible to separate this out, if you'd prefer, to account
> an intermediate cgroup as the largest descendant or the sum of all
> descendants. I hadn't found a usecase for that, however, but it doesn't
> mean there isn't one. If you'd like, I can introduce another tunable.
>
Roman, I'm trying to make progress so that the cgroup aware oom killer is
in a state that it can be merged. Would you prefer a second tunable here
to specify a cgroup's points includes memory from its subtree?
It would be helpful if you would also review the rest of the patchset.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists