lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
    On Mon 25-09-17 19:15:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
    [...]
    > I'm not against this model, as I've said before. It feels logical,
    > and will work fine in most cases.
    >
    > In this case we can drop any mount/boot options, because it preserves
    > the existing behavior in the default configuration. A big advantage.

    I am not sure about this. We still need an opt-in, ragardless, because
    selecting the largest process from the largest memcg != selecting the
    largest task (just consider memcgs with many processes example).

    > The only thing, I'm slightly concerned, that due to the way how we calculate
    > the memory footprint for tasks and memory cgroups, we will have a number
    > of weird edge cases. For instance, when putting a single process into
    > the group_oom memcg will alter the oom_score significantly and result
    > in significantly different chances to be killed. An obvious example will
    > be a task with oom_score_adj set to any non-extreme (other than 0 and -1000)
    > value, but it can also happen in case of constrained alloc, for instance.

    I am not sure I understand. Are you talking about root memcg comparing
    to other memcgs?
    --
    Michal Hocko
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-09-25 22:27    [W:4.355 / U:0.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site