[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190128160512.GR50184@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:05:12 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events
Hello, Shakeel.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:59:33AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Why not make this configurable at the delegation boundary? As you
> mentioned, there are jobs who want centralized workload manager to
> watch over their subtrees while there can be jobs which want to
> monitor their subtree themselves. For example I can have a job which
> know how to act when one of the children cgroup goes OOM. However if
> the root of that job goes OOM then the centralized workload manager
> should do something about it. With this change, how to implement this
> scenario? How will the central manager differentiates between that a
> subtree of a job goes OOM or the root of that job? I guess from the
> discussion it seems like the centralized manager has to traverse that
> job's subtree to find the source of OOM.
>
> Why can't we let the implementation of centralized manager easier by
> allowing to configure the propagation of these notifications across
> delegation boundary.
I think the right way to achieve the above would be having separate
recursive and local counters.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists