lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] introduce memory.oom.group
    On Thu 09-08-18 13:10:10, David Rientjes wrote:
    > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
    >
    > > > > > In a cgroup-aware oom killer world, yes, we need the ability to specify
    > > > > > that the usage of the entire subtree should be compared as a single
    > > > > > entity with other cgroups. That is necessary for user subtrees but may
    > > > > > not be necessary for top-level cgroups depending on how you structure your
    > > > > > unified cgroup hierarchy. So it needs to be configurable, as you suggest,
    > > > > > and you are correct it can be different than oom.group.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > That's not the only thing we need though, as I'm sure you were expecting
    > > > > > me to say :)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > We need the ability to preserve existing behavior, i.e. process based and
    > > > > > not cgroup aware, for subtrees so that our users who have clear
    > > > > > expectations and tune their oom_score_adj accordingly based on how the oom
    > > > > > killer has always chosen processes for oom kill do not suddenly regress.
    > > > >
    > > > > Isn't the combination of oom.group=0 and oom.evaluate_together=1 describing
    > > > > this case? This basically means that if memcg is selected as target,
    > > > > the process inside will be selected using traditional per-process approach.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > No, that would overload the policy and mechanism. We want the ability to
    > > > consider user-controlled subtrees as a single entity for comparison with
    > > > other user subtrees to select which subtree to target. This does not
    > > > imply that users want their entire subtree oom killed.
    > >
    > > Yeah, that's why oom.group == 0, no?
    > >
    > > Anyway, can we separate this discussion from the current series please?
    > > We are getting more and more tangent.
    > >
    > > Or do you still see the current state to be not mergeable?
    >
    > I've said three times in this series that I am fine with it.

    OK, that wasn't really clear to me because I haven't see any explicit
    ack from you (well except for the trivial helper patch). So I was not
    sure.

    > Roman and I
    > are discussing the API for making forward progress with the cgroup aware
    > oom killer itself. When he responds, he can change the subject line if
    > that would be helpful to you.

    I do not insist of course but it would be easier to follow if that
    discussion was separate.

    --
    Michal Hocko
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-08-10 09:05    [W:2.466 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site