From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] memcg: add oom killer delay
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:55:53 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110208105553.76cfe424.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1102071623040.10488@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:24:08 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> Completely disabling the oom killer for a memcg is problematic if
> userspace is unable to address the condition itself, usually because it
> is unresponsive. This scenario creates a memcg deadlock: tasks are
> sitting in TASK_KILLABLE waiting for the limit to be increased, a task to
> exit or move, or the oom killer reenabled and userspace is unable to do
> so.
>
> An additional possible use case is to defer oom killing within a memcg
> for a set period of time, probably to prevent unnecessary kills due to
> temporary memory spikes, before allowing the kernel to handle the
> condition.
>
> This patch adds an oom killer delay so that a memcg may be configured to
> wait at least a pre-defined number of milliseconds before calling the oom
> killer. If the oom condition persists for this number of milliseconds,
> the oom killer will be called the next time the memory controller
> attempts to charge a page (and memory.oom_control is set to 0). This
> allows userspace to have a short period of time to respond to the
> condition before deferring to the kernel to kill a task.
>
> Admins may set the oom killer delay using the new interface:
>
> # echo 60000 > memory.oom_delay_millisecs
>
> This will defer oom killing to the kernel only after 60 seconds has
> elapsed by putting the task to sleep for 60 seconds. When setting
> memory.oom_delay_millisecs, all pending delays have their charges retried
> and, if necessary, the new delay is then enforced.
>
> The delay is cleared the first time the memcg is oom to avoid unnecessary
> waiting when userspace is unresponsive for future oom conditions. It may
> be set again using the above interface to enforce a delay on the next
> oom.
>
> When a memory.oom_delay_millisecs is set for a cgroup, it is propagated
> to all children memcg as well and is inherited when a new memcg is
> created.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
> Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ Brief summary of control files.
> (See sysctl's vm.swappiness)
> memory.move_charge_at_immigrate # set/show controls of moving charges
> memory.oom_control # set/show oom controls.
> + memory.oom_delay_millisecs # set/show millisecs to wait before oom kill
>
> 1. History
>
> @@ -640,6 +641,33 @@ At reading, current status of OOM is shown.
> under_oom 0 or 1 (if 1, the memory cgroup is under OOM, tasks may
> be stopped.)
>
> +It is also possible to configure an oom killer timeout to prevent the
> +possibility that the memcg will deadlock looking for memory if userspace
> +has disabled the oom killer with oom_control but cannot act to fix the
> +condition itself (usually because userspace has become unresponsive).
> +
> +To set an oom killer timeout for a memcg, write the number of milliseconds
> +to wait before killing a task to memory.oom_delay_millisecs:
> +
> + # echo 60000 > memory.oom_delay_millisecs # 60 seconds before kill
> +
> +This timeout is reset the first time the memcg is oom to prevent needlessly
> +waiting for the next oom when userspace is truly unresponsive. It may be
> +set again using the above interface to defer killing a task the next time
> +the memcg is oom.
> +
> +Disabling the oom killer for a memcg with memory.oom_control takes
> +precedence over memory.oom_delay_millisecs, so it must be set to 0
> +(default) to allow the oom kill after the delay has expired.
> +
> +This value is inherited from the memcg's parent on creation. Setting
> +a delay for a memcg sets the same delay for all children, as well.
> +
> +There is no delay if memory.oom_delay_millisecs is set to 0 (default).
> +This tunable's upper bound is MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT (about 24 days on
> +32-bit and a lifetime on 64-bit).
> +
> +
> 11. TODO
>
> 1. Add support for accounting huge pages (as a separate controller)
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> unsigned int swappiness;
> /* OOM-Killer disable */
> int oom_kill_disable;
> + /* number of ticks to stall before calling oom killer */
> + int oom_delay;
>
> /* set when res.limit == memsw.limit */
> bool memsw_is_minimum;
> @@ -1541,10 +1543,11 @@ static void memcg_oom_recover(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> /*
> * try to call OOM killer. returns false if we should exit memory-reclaim loop.
> */
> -bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask)
> +static bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask)
> {
> struct oom_wait_info owait;
> bool locked, need_to_kill;
> + long timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT;
>
> owait.mem = mem;
> owait.wait.flags = 0;
> @@ -1563,15 +1566,21 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask)
> prepare_to_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait, TASK_KILLABLE);
> if (!locked || mem->oom_kill_disable)
> need_to_kill = false;
> - if (locked)
> + if (locked) {
> + if (mem->oom_delay) {
> + need_to_kill = false;
> + timeout = mem->oom_delay;
> + mem->oom_delay = 0;
> + }
> mem_cgroup_oom_notify(mem);
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&memcg_oom_mutex);
>
> if (need_to_kill) {
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(mem, mask);
> } else {
> - schedule();
> + schedule_timeout(timeout);
> finish_wait(&memcg_oom_waitq, &owait.wait);
> }
> mutex_lock(&memcg_oom_mutex);
> @@ -1582,7 +1591,8 @@ bool mem_cgroup_handle_oom(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t mask)
> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE) || fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return false;
> /* Give chance to dying process */
> - schedule_timeout(1);
> + if (timeout == MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
> + schedule_timeout(1);
> return true;
> }
>
> @@ -4168,6 +4178,30 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static u64 mem_cgroup_oom_delay_millisecs_read(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> + struct cftype *cft)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> +
> + return jiffies_to_msecs(memcg->oom_delay);
> +}
> +
> +static int mem_cgroup_oom_delay_millisecs_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> + struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> + struct mem_cgroup *iter;
> +
> + if (val > MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) {
> + iter->oom_delay = msecs_to_jiffies(val);
> + memcg_oom_recover(iter);
> + }
> + return 0;
Seems nicer and it seems you tries to update all children cgroups.
BTW, with above code, with following heirarchy,
A
/
B
/
C
When a user set oom_delay in order as A->B->C, A,B,C can have 'different' numbers.
When a user set oom_delay in order as C->B->A, A,B,C will have the same numbers.
This intreface seems magical, or broken.
So, my recomendation is 'just allow to set value a cgroup which has no children/parent'.
Or 'just allo to se value a cgroup which is a root of a hierarchy'.
Could you add a check ? Inheritance at mkdir() is okay to me.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-08 2:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-08 0:24 David Rientjes
2011-02-08 1:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2011-02-08 2:13 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-08 2:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-08 2:20 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-08 2:37 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-08 10:25 ` Balbir Singh
2011-02-09 22:19 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-10 0:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-16 3:15 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-20 22:19 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-23 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
2011-02-24 0:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-24 0:51 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-03 20:11 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-03 21:52 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-08 0:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 0:29 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-08 0:36 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 0:51 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-08 1:02 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 1:18 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-08 1:33 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 2:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08 3:07 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 3:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08 3:56 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 4:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08 5:30 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 5:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08 23:49 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-09 6:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09 6:44 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-09 7:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09 21:12 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-09 21:27 ` [patch] memcg: give current access to memory reserves if it's trying to die David Rientjes
2011-03-09 23:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-17 23:37 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-17 23:53 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-18 4:35 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-18 5:17 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-18 5:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-18 20:36 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-18 20:32 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-08 3:06 ` [patch] memcg: add oom killer delay KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-12-22 7:27 David Rientjes
2010-12-22 7:59 ` Andrew Morton
2010-12-22 8:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-12-22 8:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-12-22 8:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-12-22 8:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-12-22 8:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-12-22 9:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-12-27 1:47 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-12-22 9:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-12-22 8:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-12-25 10:47 ` Balbir Singh
2010-12-26 20:35 ` David Rientjes
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=20110208105553.76cfe424.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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