Re: [patch v3 -mm 3/6] mm, memcg: add hierarchical usage oom policy

[David Rientjes]

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.