From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f199.google.com (mail-yw0-f199.google.com [209.85.161.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03EF6B0008 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-f199.google.com with SMTP id t10-v6so2180571ywc.7 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id h129-v6sor2704790yba.91.2018.07.24.06.55.31 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:55:28 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: cgroup-aware OOM killer, how to move forward Message-ID: <20180724135528.GK1934745@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20180718152846.GA6840@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180719073843.GL7193@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180719170543.GA21770@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180723141748.GH31229@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180723150929.GD1934745@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180724073230.GE28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180724130836.GH1934745@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180724132640.GL28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180724133110.GJ1934745@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180724135022.GO28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180724135022.GO28386@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin , hannes@cmpxchg.org, David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gthelen@google.com Hello, On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So, one good way of thinking about this, I think, could be considering > > it as a scoped panic_on_oom. However panic_on_oom interacts with > > memcg ooms, scoping that to cgroup level should likely be how we > > define group oom. > > So what are we going to do if we have a reasonable usecase when somebody > really wants to have group kill behavior depending on the oom domain? > I have hard time to imagine such a usecase but my experience tells me > that users will find a way I have never thought about. So, I don't know when that happend but panic_on_oom actually has 0, 1, 2 settings - 0 no group oom, 1 system kill on oom of any origin, 2 system kill only if it was a system oom. Maybe we should just follow that but just start with 1? Thanks. -- tejun