On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> > It's actually much more complex because in our environment we'd need an 
> > "activity manager" with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to control oom priorities of user 
> > subcontainers when today it need only be concerned with top-level memory 
> > cgroups.  Users can create their own hierarchies with their own oom 
> > priorities at will, it doesn't alter the selection heuristic for another 
> > other user running on the same system and gives them full control over the 
> > selection in their own subtree.  We shouldn't need to have a system-wide 
> > daemon with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE be required to manage subcontainers when 
> > nothing else requires it.  I believe it's also much easier to document: 
> > oom_priority is considered for all sibling cgroups at each level of the 
> > hierarchy and the cgroup with the lowest priority value gets iterated.
> 
> I do agree actually. System-wide OOM priorities make no sense.
> 
> Always compare sibling cgroups, either by priority or size, seems to be
> simple, clear and powerful enough for all reasonable use cases. Am I right,
> that it's exactly what you've used internally? This is a perfect confirmation,
> I believe.
> 

We've used it for at least four years, I added my Tested-by to your patch, 
we would convert to your implementation if it is merged upstream, and I 
would enthusiastically support your patch if you would integrate it back 
into your series.

Reply via email to