From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aleksa Sarai Subject: Re: [v5 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:20:18 +1000 Message-ID: References: <20170814183213.12319-1-guro@fb.com> <20170814183213.12319-3-guro@fb.com> <20170815121558.GA15892@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170815121558.GA15892@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Roman Gushchin , David Rientjes Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/15/2017 10:15 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Generally, oom_score_adj should have a meaning only on a cgroup level, > so extending it to the system level doesn't sound as a good idea. But wasn't the original purpose of oom_score (and oom_score_adj) to work on a system level, aka "normal" OOM? Is there some peculiarity about memcg OOM that I'm missing? -- Aleksa Sarai Software Engineer (Containers) SUSE Linux GmbH https://www.cyphar.com/ -- 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