From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f72.google.com (mail-lf0-f72.google.com [209.85.215.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF18280449 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 13:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f72.google.com with SMTP id h80so5310360lfe.7 for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com. [67.231.153.30]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q125si122406ljq.171.2017.09.06.10.41.12 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 18:40:43 +0100 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware OOM killer Message-ID: <20170906174043.GA12579@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> References: <20170904142108.7165-1-guro@fb.com> <20170904142108.7165-6-guro@fb.com> <20170905134412.qdvqcfhvbdzmarna@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170905143021.GA28599@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> <20170905151251.luh4wogjd3msfqgf@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170905191609.GA19687@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> <20170906084242.l4rcx6n3hdzxvil6@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170906084242.l4rcx6n3hdzxvil6@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org sOn Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:42:42AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 05-09-17 20:16:09, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:12:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > Then we should probably hide corresponding > > > > cgroup interface (oom_group and oom_priority knobs) by default, > > > > and it feels as unnecessary complication and is overall against > > > > cgroup v2 interface design. > > > > > > Why. If we care enough, we could simply return EINVAL when those knobs > > > are written while the corresponding strategy is not used. > > > > It doesn't look as a nice default interface. > > I do not have a strong opinion on this. A printk_once could explain why > the knob is ignored and instruct the admin how to enable the feature > completely. > > > > > > I think we should instead go with > > > > > oom_strategy=[alloc_task,biggest_task,cgroup] > > > > > > > > It would be a really nice interface; although I've no idea how to implement it: > > > > "alloc_task" is an existing sysctl, which we have to preserve; > > > > > > I would argue that we should simply deprecate and later drop the sysctl. > > > I _strongly_ suspect anybody is using this. If yes it is not that hard > > > to change the kernel command like rather than select the sysctl. > > > > I agree. And if so, why do we need a new interface for an useless feature? > > Well, I won't be opposed just deprecating the sysfs and only add a > "real" kill-allocate strategy if somebody explicitly asks for it. I think we should select this approach. Let's check that nobody actually uses it. Thanks! --