lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND v12 0/6] cgroup-aware OOM killer
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> The thing is that the hierarchical approach (as in v8), which are you pushing,
> has it's own limitations, which we've discussed in details earlier. There are
> reasons why v12 is different, and we can't really simple go back. I mean if
> there are better ideas how to resolve concerns raised in discussions around v8,
> let me know, but ignoring them is not an option.
>

I'm not ignoring them, I have stated that we need the ability to protect
important cgroups on the system without oom disabling all attached
processes. If that is implemented as a memory.oom_score_adj with the same
semantics as /proc/pid/oom_score_adj, i.e. a proportion of available
memory (the limit), it can also address the issues pointed out with the
hierarchical approach in v8. If this is not the case, could you elaborate
on what your exact concern is and why we do not care that users can
completely circumvent victim selection by creating child cgroups for other
controllers?

Since the ability to protect important cgroups on the system may require a
heuristic change, I think it should be solved now rather than constantly
insisting that we can make this patchset complete later and in the
meantime force the user to set all attached processes to be oom disabled.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-30 22:37    [W:0.082 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site