On Tue 16-01-18 13:36:21, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > No, this isn't how kernel features get introduced. We don't design a new
> > > kernel feature with its own API for a highly specialized usecase and then
> > > claim we'll fix the problems later.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > No, this isn't how kernel features get introduced. We don't design a new
> > kernel feature with its own API for a highly specialized usecase and then
> > claim we'll fix the problems later. Users will work around the
> > constraints of the new fea
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > It's quite trivial to allow the root mem cgroup to be compared exactly the
> > same as another cgroup. Please see
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151579459920305.
>
> This only says "that will be fixed" and doesn't address why I care.
>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 03:44:09PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > You don't have any control and no accounting of the stuff situated
> > inside the root cgroup, so it doesn't make sense to leave anything in
> > there while also using sophisticated
On Fri 12-01-18 14:03:03, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > Summarizing all this, following the hierarchy is good when it reflects
> > the "importance" of cgroup's memory for a user, and bad otherwise.
> > In generic case with unified hierarchy it's not true,
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> You don't have any control and no accounting of the stuff situated
> inside the root cgroup, so it doesn't make sense to leave anything in
> there while also using sophisticated containerization mechanisms like
> this group oom setting.
>
> In fact, t
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:33:45AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:11:44 -0800 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:57:53PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Summarizing all this, following the hierarchy is good when it reflects
> the "importance" of cgroup's memory for a user, and bad otherwise.
> In generic case with unified hierarchy it's not true, so following
> the hierarchy unconditionally is bad.
>
>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I find this problem quite minor, because I haven't seen any practical
> > > problems
> > > caused by accounting of the root cgroup memory.
> > > If it's a serious problem for you, it can be solved without switching to
> > > the
> > > hierarchical ac
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:08:09AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 10-01-18 11:33:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:11:44 -0800 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > > The per-process oom_score_adj interface is not the nicest one, and I'm not
> > > sure we want to replicate it on cgr
On Wed 10-01-18 11:33:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:11:44 -0800 Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > Hello, David!
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:57:53PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This patchset makes the OOM kille
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > 1. The unfair comparison of the root mem cgroup vs leaf mem cgroups
> >
> > The patchset uses two different heuristics to compare root and leaf mem
> > cgroups and scores them based on number of pages. For the root mem
> > cgroup, it totals the /p
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:11:44 -0800 Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Hello, David!
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:57:53PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'll grab these.
> > >
>
Hello, David!
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:57:53PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
> >
> > Thanks, I'll grab these.
> >
> > There has been controversy over this patchset, to say the least. I
> > can
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
>
> Thanks, I'll grab these.
>
> There has been controversy over this patchset, to say the least. I
> can't say that I followed it closely! Could those who still have
> reservations please summarise
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:28:17 + Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
Thanks, I'll grab these.
There has been controversy over this patchset, to say the least. I
can't say that I followed it closely! Could those who still have
reservations please summaris
This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
v13:
- Reverted fallback to per-process OOM as in v11 (asked by Michal)
- Added entry in cgroup features list
- Added a note about charge migration
- Rebase
v12:
- Root memory cgroup is evaluated based on sum of the oom scores
of belo
17 matches
Mail list logo
