Re: cgroup-aware OOM killer, how to move forward

[Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:21:31AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:30:00AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> ...
> > process chosen for oom kill.  I know that you care about the latter.  My 
> > *only* suggestion was for the tunable to take a string instead of a 
> > boolean so it is extensible for future use.  This seems like something so 
> > trivial.
> 
> So, I'd much prefer it as boolean.  It's a fundamentally binary
> property, either handle the cgroup as a unit when chosen as oom victim
> or not, nothing more.  I don't see the (interface-wise) benefits of
> preparing for further oom policy extensions.  If that happens, it
> should be through a separate interface file.  The number of files
> isn't the most important criteria interface is designed on.
> 
> Roman, can you rename it tho to memory.oom.group?  That's how other
> interface files are scoped and it'd be better if we try to add further
> oom related interface files later.

Yes, sure, this looks good to me.

Thanks!