From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:03:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170814120349.GA24393@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1708081559001.54505@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:06:38PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > > To the rest of the patch. I have to say I do not quite like how it is
> > > implemented. I was hoping for something much simpler which would hook
> > > into oom_evaluate_task. If a task belongs to a memcg with kill-all flag
> > > then we would update the cumulative memcg badness (more specifically the
> > > badness of the topmost parent with kill-all flag). Memcg will then
> > > compete with existing self contained tasks (oom_badness will have to
> > > tell whether points belong to a task or a memcg to allow the caller to
> > > deal with it). But it shouldn't be much more complex than that.
> >
> > I'm not sure, it will be any simpler. Basically I'm doing the same:
> > the difference is that you want to iterate over tasks and for each
> > task traverse the memcg tree, update per-cgroup oom score and find
> > the corresponding memcg(s) with the kill-all flag. I'm doing the opposite:
> > traverse the cgroup tree, and for each leaf cgroup iterate over processes.
> >
> > Also, please note, that even without the kill-all flag the decision is made
> > on per-cgroup level (except tasks in the root cgroup).
> >
>
> I think your implementation is preferred and is actually quite simple to
> follow, and I would encourage you to follow through with it. It has a
> similar implementation to what we have done for years to kill a process
> from a leaf memcg.
Hi David!
Thank you for the support.
>
> I did notice that oom_kill_memcg_victim() calls directly into
> __oom_kill_process(), however, so we lack the traditional oom killer
> output that shows memcg usage and potential tasklist. I think we should
> still be dumping this information to the kernel log so that we can see a
> breakdown of charged memory.
I think the existing output is too verbose for the case, when we kill
a cgroup with many processes inside. But I absolutely agree, that we need
some debug output, I'll add it in v5.
Thanks!
--
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:[~2017-08-14 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-26 13:27 [v4 0/4] " Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the TIF_MEMDIE usage Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 14:06 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 14:44 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-26 14:50 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-07-27 21:41 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-01 14:54 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-01 15:25 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-01 17:03 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-01 18:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-02 7:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-03 12:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-03 13:01 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-08 23:06 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:03 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 3/4] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-08-08 23:14 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:39 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-07-26 13:27 ` [v4 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-08 23:24 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 12:28 ` Roman Gushchin
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=20170814120349.GA24393@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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