On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 20:14 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On 21.05.2021 17:07, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > [SNIP] > > Yes, you need to set it on all ancestors, and the documentation > > mentions this: > > > > """ > > For a protection to be effective, it is generally required to > > set a corresponding allocation on all ancestors, which is > > then distributed between children (with the exception of the > > root slice). Any MemoryMin= or MemoryLow= allocation that is > > not explicitly distributed to specific children is used to > > create a shared protection for all children. As this is a > > shared protection, the children will freely compete for the > > memory. > > """ > > > > OK, it is in upstream now, was not in my version and I did not pay > attention to web page. Sorry.
Ah, true, they were updated not too long ago. > I guess I expected systemd to somehow handle it, given that it knows > all the settings, knows exact hierarchy and is the sole master of > cgroup tree. I think it is a bit of a conundrum. Automatic handling would be neat, but it also does not make sense that protections further up in the hierarchy could increase indefinitely. A somewhat ugly corner case are the automatically created slice units for template services. Here the user will need to explicitly configure a sane limit on the parent slice unit. Benjamin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
