From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 12:18:04 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18621b07-256b-7da1-885a-c96dfc8244b6@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220921064710.89663-1-ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022, Gang Li wrote:
> cpuset confine processes to processor and memory node subsets.
> When a process in cpuset triggers oom, it may kill a completely
> irrelevant process on another numa node, which will not release any
> memory for this cpuset.
>
> It seems that `CONSTRAINT_CPUSET` is not really doing much these
> days. Using CONSTRAINT_CPUSET, we can easily achieve node aware oom
> killing by selecting victim from the cpuset which triggers oom.
>
> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
Hmm, is this the right approach?
If a cpuset results in a oom condition, is there a reason why we'd need to
find a process from within that cpuset to kill? I think the idea is to
free memory on the oom set of nodes (cpuset.mems) and that can happen by
killing a process that is not a member of this cpuset.
I understand the challenges of creating a NUMA aware oom killer to target
memory that is actually resident on an oom node, but this approach doesn't
seem right and could actually lead to pathological cases where a small
process trying to fork in an otherwise empty cpuset is repeatedly oom
killing when we'd actually prefer to kill a single large process.
> ---
> This idea comes from a previous patch:
> mm, oom: Introduce per numa node oom for CONSTRAINT_MEMORY_POLICY
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YoJ%2FioXwGTdCywUE@dhcp22.suse.cz/
>
> Any comments are welcome.
> ---
> include/linux/cpuset.h | 6 ++++++
> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> mm/oom_kill.c | 4 ++++
> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> index d58e0476ee8e..7475f613ab90 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> @@ -178,6 +178,8 @@ static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
> task_unlock(current);
> }
>
> +int cpuset_cgroup_scan_tasks(int (*fn)(struct task_struct *, void *), void *arg);
> +
> #else /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */
>
> static inline bool cpusets_enabled(void) { return false; }
> @@ -299,6 +301,10 @@ static inline bool read_mems_allowed_retry(unsigned int seq)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline int cpuset_cgroup_scan_tasks(int (*fn)(struct task_struct *, void *), void *arg)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> #endif /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_CPUSET_H */
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index b474289c15b8..1f1238b4276d 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -3943,6 +3943,23 @@ void cpuset_print_current_mems_allowed(void)
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> +int cpuset_cgroup_scan_tasks(int (*fn)(struct task_struct *, void *), void *arg)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct cgroup *cgrp;
> + struct css_task_iter it;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + css_task_iter_start(&(task_cs(current)->css), CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it);
> + while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it)))
> + ret = fn(task, arg);
> + css_task_iter_end(&it);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Collection of memory_pressure is suppressed unless
> * this flag is enabled by writing "1" to the special
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 46e7e073f137..8cea787b359c 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -367,6 +367,8 @@ static void select_bad_process(struct oom_control *oc)
>
> if (is_memcg_oom(oc))
> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->memcg, oom_evaluate_task, oc);
> + else if (oc->constraint == CONSTRAINT_CPUSET)
> + cpuset_cgroup_scan_tasks(oom_evaluate_task, oc);
> else {
> struct task_struct *p;
>
> @@ -427,6 +429,8 @@ static void dump_tasks(struct oom_control *oc)
>
> if (is_memcg_oom(oc))
> mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->memcg, dump_task, oc);
> + else if (oc->constraint == CONSTRAINT_CPUSET)
> + cpuset_cgroup_scan_tasks(dump_task, oc);
> else {
> struct task_struct *p;
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-22 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-21 6:47 Gang Li
2022-09-22 19:18 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2022-09-23 7:45 ` Michal Hocko
2022-09-29 3:15 ` Gang Li
2022-09-26 3:38 ` Gang Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18621b07-256b-7da1-885a-c96dfc8244b6@google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox