lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] introduce memory.oom.group
    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
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-08-02 10:01    [W:4.002 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site