Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1fe17d13-4b63-93ab-e6b2-3c9d09da208e@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:33:27 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     rientjes@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230404115509.14299-1-ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
 <ZCw0sR6IqYa5Es7Q@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <e444e0ca-a2ff-37f2-1f1a-032b9fd63235@bytedance.com>
 <ZC6DKM4LDOVgohpj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZC6DKM4LDOVgohpj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.
>