Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom

[Gang Li]

I see, then let's do this as you said.


On 2023/4/6 16:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> As I've said, I do not see any major concern having this behavior
> implicit, the behavior makes semantic sense and it is also much more
> likely that the selected oom victim will be a better choice than what we
> do currently. Especially on properly partitioned systems with large
> memory consumers in each partition (cpuset).
>
> That being said, I would just not add any sysctl at this stage and
> rather document the decision. If we ever encounter usecase(s) which
> would regress based on this change we can introcuce the sysctl later.