[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] introduce
On Wed 01-08-18 14:51:25, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > What's the plan with the cgroup aware oom killer? It has been sitting in
> > > the -mm tree for ages with no clear path to being merged.
> >
> > It's because your nack, isn't it?
> > Everybody else seem to be fine with it.
> >
> If they are fine with it, I'm not sure they have tested it :) Killing
> entire cgroups needlessly for mempolicy oom kills that will not free
> memory on target nodes is the first regression they may notice.

I do not remember you would be mentioning this previously. Anyway the
older implementation has considered the nodemask in memcg_oom_badness.
You are right that a cpuset allocation could needlessly select a memcg
with small or no memory from the target nodemask which is something I
could have noticed during the review. If only I didn't have to spend all
my energy to go through repetitive arguments of yours. Anyway this would
be quite trivial to resolve in the same function by checking
node_isset(node, current->mems_allowed).

Thanks for your productive feedback again.

Skipping the rest which is yet again repeating same arguments and it
doesn't add anything new to the table.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-02 10:01    [W:0.079 / U:4.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site