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 28F6C6B0273 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:43:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f72.google.com with SMTP id y15so136103lfd.6 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com. [67.231.153.30]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 86si14080lja.480.2017.09.07.09.43.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2017 09:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:45 +0100 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware OOM killer Message-ID: <20170907164245.GA21177@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> References: <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> <20170907145239.GA19022@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 10:03:24AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > 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. > > One of the OOM causes could be that memory was restricted to a certain > node set. Killing the allocating task is (was?) default behavior in that > case so that the task that has the restrictions is killed. Not any task > that may not have the restrictions and woiuld not experience OOM. As I can see, it's not the default behavior these days. If we have a way to select a victim between memcgs/tasks which are actually using the corresponding type of memory, it's much better than to kill an allocating task. -- 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