On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > Do you have an example, which can't be effectively handled by an approach
> > > I'm suggesting?
> >
> > No, I do not have any which would be _explicitly_ requested but I do
> > envision new requirements will emerge. The most probable one would be
On Thu 24-08-17 13:51:13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 23-08-17 17:52:00, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > Introduce a per-memory-cgroup oom_priority setting: an integer number
> > > within the [-1, 1] range, which defines the
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:10:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 23-08-17 17:52:00, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Introduce a per-memory-cgroup oom_priority setting: an integer number
> > within the [-1, 1] range, which defines the order in which
> > the OOM killer selects victim memory
On Wed 23-08-17 17:52:00, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Introduce a per-memory-cgroup oom_priority setting: an integer number
> within the [-1, 1] range, which defines the order in which
> the OOM killer selects victim memory cgroups.
Why do we need a range here?
> OOM killer prefers memory
Introduce a per-memory-cgroup oom_priority setting: an integer number
within the [-1, 1] range, which defines the order in which
the OOM killer selects victim memory cgroups.
OOM killer prefers memory cgroups with larger priority if they are
populated with eligible tasks.
The
