From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D766E6B0006 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 04:00:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id i26-v6so534502edr.4 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 01:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y10-v6si1041433edq.450.2018.08.02.01.00.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Aug 2018 01:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:00:41 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] introduce memory.oom.group Message-ID: <20180802080041.GB10808@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180730180100.25079-1-guro@fb.com> <20180731235135.GA23436@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: David Rientjes Cc: Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 01-08-18 14:51:25, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > What's the plan with the cgroup aware oom killer? It has been sitting in > > > the -mm tree for ages with no clear path to being merged. > > > > It's because your nack, isn't it? > > Everybody else seem to be fine with it. > > > > If they are fine with it, I'm not sure they have tested it :) Killing > entire cgroups needlessly for mempolicy oom kills that will not free > memory on target nodes is the first regression they may notice. I do not remember you would be mentioning this previously. Anyway the older implementation has considered the nodemask in memcg_oom_badness. You are right that a cpuset allocation could needlessly select a memcg with small or no memory from the target nodemask which is something I could have noticed during the review. If only I didn't have to spend all my energy to go through repetitive arguments of yours. Anyway this would be quite trivial to resolve in the same function by checking node_isset(node, current->mems_allowed). Thanks for your productive feedback again. Skipping the rest which is yet again repeating same arguments and it doesn't add anything new to the table. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs