On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote: > > And "tree" is different. It actually changes how the selection algorithm > > works, > > and sub-tree settings do matter in this case. > > > > "Tree" is considering the entity as a single indivisible memory consumer, > it is compared with siblings based on its hierarhical usage. It has > cgroup oom policy. > > It would be possible to separate this out, if you'd prefer, to account > an intermediate cgroup as the largest descendant or the sum of all > descendants. I hadn't found a usecase for that, however, but it doesn't > mean there isn't one. If you'd like, I can introduce another tunable. >
Roman, I'm trying to make progress so that the cgroup aware oom killer is in a state that it can be merged. Would you prefer a second tunable here to specify a cgroup's points includes memory from its subtree? It would be helpful if you would also review the rest of the patchset.
