On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> > As said in other email. We can make priorities hierarchical (in the same
> > sense as hard limit or others) so that children cannot override their
> > parent.
> You mean they can set the knob to any value, but parent's value is enforced,
> if it's greater than child's value?
> If so, this sounds logical to me. Then we have size-based comparison and
> priority-based comparison with similar rules, and all use cases are covered.
> Ok, can we stick with this design?
> Then I'll return oom_priorities in place, and post a (hopefully) final 
> version.

I just want to make sure that we are going with your original 
implementation here: that oom_priority is only effective for compare 
sibling memory cgroups and nothing beyond that.  The value alone has no 
relationship to any ancestor.  We can't set oom_priority based on the 
priorities of any other memory cgroups other than our own siblings because 
we have no control over how those change.

Reply via email to