From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f199.google.com (mail-ua0-f199.google.com [209.85.217.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC316B0033 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 11:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ua0-f199.google.com with SMTP id e46so7085152uaa.6 for ; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com. [67.231.145.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u190si8051qkf.521.2017.10.04.08.05.23 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:04:52 +0100 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Message-ID: <20171004150452.GA23299@castle> References: <20170927130936.8601-1-guro@fb.com> <20170927130936.8601-4-guro@fb.com> <20171003114848.gstdawonla2gmfio@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171003123721.GA27919@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> <20171003133623.hoskmd3fsh4t2phf@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171003140841.GA29624@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree > > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more > > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value. > > > > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're > > inheriting it; or not inherit. > > Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for > oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same > unless they explicitly state otherwise. Not sure I understand why. Setting memory.oom_group on a child memcg has absolutely no meaning until memory.max is also set. In case of OOM scoped to the parent memcg or above, parent's value defines the behavior. If a user decides to create a separate OOM domain (be setting the hard memory limit), he/she can also make a decision on how OOM event should be handled. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org