On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > root
> > > > > / | \
> > > > > A B C
> > > > >/ \/ \
> > > > > D E F G
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume A: cgroup, B: oom_group=1, C: tree, G: oom_group=1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > At each level
On Tue 30-01-18 14:38:40, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > > So what is the actual semantic and scope of this policy. Does it apply
> > > > only down the hierarchy. Also how do you compare cgroups with different
> > > > policies? Let's say you have
> > > >
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > So what is the actual semantic and scope of this policy. Does it apply
> > > only down the hierarchy. Also how do you compare cgroups with different
> > > policies? Let's say you have
> > > root
> > > / | \
> > > A B C
On Mon 29-01-18 14:38:02, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > The cgroup aware oom killer is needlessly declared for the entire system
> > > by a mount option. It's unnecessary to force the system into a single
> > > oom policy: either cgroup aware, or the
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The cgroup aware oom killer is needlessly declared for the entire system
> > by a mount option. It's unnecessary to force the system into a single
> > oom policy: either cgroup aware, or the traditional process aware.
> >
> > This patch introduces a
On Thu 25-01-18 15:53:45, David Rientjes wrote:
> The cgroup aware oom killer is needlessly declared for the entire system
> by a mount option. It's unnecessary to force the system into a single
> oom policy: either cgroup aware, or the traditional process aware.
>
> This patch introduces a
The cgroup aware oom killer is needlessly declared for the entire system
by a mount option. It's unnecessary to force the system into a single
oom policy: either cgroup aware, or the traditional process aware.
This patch introduces a memory.oom_policy tunable for all mem cgroups.
It is currently
