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:0.039 / U:4.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site