From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8978D6B0003 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id h48-v6so13737482edh.22 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h15-v6si4255520ejq.203.2018.10.16.04.17.09 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Oct 2018 04:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:17:07 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg, oom: throttle dump_header for memcg ooms without eligible tasks Message-ID: <20181016111707.GS18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <6c0a57b3-bfd4-d832-b0bd-5dd3bcae460e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20181015133524.GM18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201810160055.w9G0t62E045154@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20181016092043.GP18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <59b9bd23-ff75-0488-fd96-68ee7f049d00@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59b9bd23-ff75-0488-fd96-68ee7f049d00@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, guro@fb.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, Andrew Morton , Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt On Tue 16-10-18 20:05:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/16 18:20, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Anyway, I'm OK if we apply _BOTH_ your patch and my patch. Or I'm OK with simplified > >> one shown below (because you don't like per memcg limit). > > > > My patch is adding a rate-limit! I really fail to see why we need yet > > another one on top of it. This is just ridiculous. I can see reasons to > > tune that rate limit but adding 2 different mechanisms is just wrong. > > > > If your NAK to unify the ratelimit for dump_header for all paths > > still holds then I do not care too much to push it forward. But I find > > thiis way of the review feedback counter productive. > > > > Your patch is _NOT_ adding a rate-limit for > > "%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), nodemask=%*pbl, order=%d, oom_score_adj=%hd\n" > "Out of memory and no killable processes...\n" > > lines! And I've said I do not have objections to have an _incremental_ patch to move the ratelimit up with a clear cost/benefit evaluation. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs