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.