From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] mm: don't raise MEMCG_OOM event due to failed high-order allocation
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:58:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180925155825.GA11552@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180917230846.31027-1-guro@fb.com>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:08:46PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> The memcg OOM killer is never invoked due to a failed high-order
> allocation, however the MEMCG_OOM event can be raised.
>
> As shown below, it can happen under conditions, which are very
> far from a real OOM: e.g. there is plenty of clean pagecache
> and low memory pressure.
>
> There is no sense in raising an OOM event in such a case,
> as it might confuse a user and lead to wrong and excessive actions.
>
> Let's look at the charging path in try_caharge(). If the memory usage
> is about memory.max, which is absolutely natural for most memory cgroups,
> we try to reclaim some pages. Even if we were able to reclaim
> enough memory for the allocation, the following check can fail due to
> a race with another concurrent allocation:
>
> if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
> goto retry;
>
> For regular pages the following condition will save us from triggering
> the OOM:
>
> if (nr_reclaimed && nr_pages <= (1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> goto retry;
>
> But for high-order allocation this condition will intentionally fail.
> The reason behind is that we'll likely fall to regular pages anyway,
> so it's ok and even preferred to return ENOMEM.
>
> In this case the idea of raising MEMCG_OOM looks dubious.
>
> Fix this by moving MEMCG_OOM raising to mem_cgroup_oom() after
> allocation order check, so that the event won't be raised for high
> order allocations. This change doesn't affect regular pages allocation
> and charging.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
I've tried to address all concerns and questions in the updated
changelog, so, hopefully, now it's clear why do we need this change.
Are there any comments, thoughts or objections left?
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-25 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-17 23:10 Roman Gushchin
2018-09-25 15:58 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2018-09-25 18:58 ` Michal Hocko
2018-09-26 8:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-09-26 8:24 ` Michal Hocko
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=20180925155825.GA11552@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@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