linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	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: [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:38:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171003143808.GA531@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree
> > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more
> > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value.
> > 
> > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're
> > inheriting it; or not inherit.
> 
> Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for
> oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same
> unless they explicitly state otherwise.
> 
> [...]
> > > > > > @@ -962,6 +968,48 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message)
> > > > > >  	__oom_kill_process(victim);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > +static int oom_kill_memcg_member(struct task_struct *task, void *unused)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	if (!tsk_is_oom_victim(task)) {
> > > > > 
> > > > > How can this happen?
> > > > 
> > > > We do start with killing the largest process, and then iterate over all tasks
> > > > in the cgroup. So, this check is required to avoid killing tasks which are
> > > > already in the termination process.
> > > 
> > > Do you mean we have tsk_is_oom_victim && MMF_OOM_SKIP == T?
> > 
> > No, just tsk_is_oom_victim. We're are killing the biggest task, and then _all_
> > tasks. This is a way to skip the biggest task, and do not kill it again.
> 
> OK, I have missed that part. Why are we doing that actually? Why don't
> we simply do 
> 	/* If oom_group flag is set, kill all belonging tasks */
> 	if (mem_cgroup_oom_group(oc->chosen_memcg))
> 		mem_cgroup_scan_tasks(oc->chosen_memcg, oom_kill_memcg_member,
> 				      NULL);
> 
> we are going to kill all the tasks anyway.

Well, the idea behind was that killing the biggest process give us better
chances to get out of global memory shortage and guarantee forward progress.
I can drop it, if it considered to be excessive.

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-10-03 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-27 13:09 [v9 0/5] " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 1/5] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 2/5] mm: implement mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() for the root memory cgroup Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 10:49   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:50     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 11:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:37     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 13:36       ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:08         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:22           ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:35             ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-04  9:29               ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:38             ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-10-03 14:43               ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04 15:04             ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 4/5] mm, oom: add cgroup v2 mount option for " Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 11:50   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:49     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 13:39       ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 5/5] mm, oom, docs: describe the " 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=20171003143808.GA531@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
    --to=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --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