From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f71.google.com (mail-it0-f71.google.com [209.85.214.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEEF6B04E4 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it0-f71.google.com with SMTP id d6so2499472itc.6 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com. [67.231.145.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n4si2536343ioc.56.2017.09.07.07.53.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:52:39 +0100 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware OOM killer Message-ID: <20170907145239.GA19022@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> <20170906174043.GA12579@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christopher Lameter Cc: David Rientjes , nzimmer@sgi.com, holt@sgi.com, Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sivanich@sgi.com On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:43:30AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > The oom_kill_allocating_task sysctl which causes the OOM killer > > > to simple kill the allocating task is useless. Killing the random > > > task is not the best idea. > > > > > > Nobody likes it, and hopefully nobody uses it. > > > We want to completely deprecate it at some point. > > > > > > > SGI required it when it was introduced simply to avoid the very expensive > > tasklist scan. Adding Christoph Lameter to the cc since he was involved > > back then. > > Really? From what I know and worked on way back when: The reason was to be > able to contain the affected application in a cpuset. Multiple apps may > have been running in multiple cpusets on a large NUMA machine and the OOM > condition in one cpuset should not affect the other. It also helped to > isolate the application behavior causing the oom in numerous cases. > > Doesnt this requirement transfer to cgroups in the same way? We have per-node memory stats and plan to use them during the OOM victim selection. Hopefully it can help. > > Left SGI in 2008 so adding Dimitri who may know about the current > situation. Robin Holt also left SGI as far as I know. 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: email@kvack.org