From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:28:04 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131128022804.GJ3556@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311271613340.10617@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:22:18PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > > The patch is drawing the line at "the kernel can no longer do anything to
> > > free memory", and that's the line where userspace should be notified or a
> > > process killed by the kernel.
> > >
> > > Giving current access to memory reserves in the oom killer is an
> > > optimization so that all reclaim is exhausted prior to declaring
> > > that they are necessary, the kernel still has the ability to allow
> > > that process to exit and free memory.
> >
> > "they" are necessary?
> >
>
> Memory reserves.
>
> > > This is the same as the oom notifiers within the kernel that free
> > > memory from s390 and powerpc archs: the kernel still has the ability
> > > to free memory.
> >
> > They're not the same at all. One is the kernel freeing memory, the
> > other is a random coincidence.
> >
>
> Current is on the way to memory freeing because it has a pending SIGKILL
> or is already exiting, it simply needs access to memory reserves to do so.
> This was originally introduced to prevent the oom killer from having to
> scan the set of eligible processes and silently giving it access to memory
> reserves; we didn't want to emit all of the messages to the kernel log
> because scripts (and admins) were looking at the kernel log and seeing
> that the oom killer killed something when it really came from a different
> source or was already exiting.
>
> We have a differing opinion on what to consider the point of oom (the
> "notification line that has to be drawn"). My position is to notify
> userspace when the kernel has exhausted its capability to free memory
> without killing something. In the case of current exiting or having a
> pending SIGKILL, memory is going to be freed, the oom killer simply needs
> to preempt the tasklist scan. The situation is going to be remedied. I
> defined the notification with this patch to only happen when the kernel
> can't free any memory without a kill so that userspace may do so itself.
> Michal concurred with that position.
The long-standing, user-visible definition of the current line agrees
with me. You can't just redefine this, period.
I tried to explain to you how insane the motivation for this patch is,
but it does not look like you are reading what I write. But you don't
get to change user-visible behavior just like that anyway, much less
so without a sane reason, so this was a complete waste of time :-(
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-28 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-31 1:39 [patch] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom David Rientjes
2013-10-31 5:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-13 22:19 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-13 23:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-14 0:56 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-14 3:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-14 22:57 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-14 23:26 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves David Rientjes
2013-11-14 23:26 ` [patch 2/2] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom David Rientjes
2013-11-18 18:52 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:25 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-19 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-18 12:52 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves Michal Hocko
2013-11-18 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:19 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-18 15:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-18 16:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-19 1:22 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-22 16:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-27 0:53 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-27 16:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-27 21:51 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-27 23:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-11-28 0:22 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-28 2:28 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2013-11-28 2:52 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-28 3:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-02 20:02 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-02 21:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 12:04 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-03 20:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 21:00 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-03 21:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-03 23:50 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-04 3:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-04 11:13 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-05 0:23 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-09 12:48 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-09 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-09 22:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-12-09 23:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-10 0:34 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-10 10:38 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-11 1:03 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-11 9:55 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-11 22:40 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-12 10:31 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 10:50 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-12 12:37 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-13 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-17 16:23 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 20:50 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-18 20:04 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-19 6:09 ` David Rientjes
2013-12-19 14:41 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-08 0:25 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-08 10:33 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 14:30 ` [PATCH] memcg: Do not hang on OOM when killed by userspace OOM " Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-10 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-15 14:26 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-15 21:19 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16 10:12 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-21 6:13 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-21 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-09 21:34 ` [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs " David Rientjes
2014-01-09 22:47 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-10 0:01 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 0:12 ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-10 0:23 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 0:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 22:14 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-12 22:10 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-15 14:34 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-15 21:23 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16 9:32 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-21 5:58 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-21 6:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartmann
2014-01-21 6:08 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 8:30 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-10 21:38 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-10 22:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-12 22:14 ` David Rientjes
2013-11-18 15:54 ` [patch] mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom Johannes Weiner
2013-11-18 23:15 ` One Thousand Gnomes
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=20131128022804.GJ3556@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--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