From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E3BC432C3 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478922053B for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:58:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 478922053B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id EF9976B0395; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id EAA386B0396; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id D72E76B0398; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0095.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.95]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD11C6B0395 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 770494995F4 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:58:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76201910106.11.mist61_84e005dac7a44 X-HE-Tag: mist61_84e005dac7a44 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3564 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com [209.85.128.68]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id a131so2476001wme.5 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 03:58:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=QCzcQn2cCrsxp3TOkJtxWu5o0pAEsHuV8HnlF5ztjjs=; b=c1aZyloA7+WQjR/Umm18+vsjx0r5Jniq/W9CFn5oZk/bS31cH1gsMtnG6AJWqSwcQY W2k+Gd/eQ4h8lSPOrXTAgsUen2pu3nWiwu0TfVZSNzSV6f8l8+G+Bi1hOfYR3SAwLGuh 3+PSKqoQW14ce+M7/pgZ+prOmWUy4/CiT+y3B04ignKdBRTO4Phg9z+X/Bx3NHvs7mG1 5dnrVK/wgegN8SQGs3LQtdM+w97BB68JgQETNripKdKqyECNPmNEcIDtBHOJtfEpD4NY 4ez2OjcWOh+BG4QfH39DURiV8+ZEdNCuKRFoa7a3wvR9AvFVR3W0kVa5rrv+lht6aQZS 7svA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUxZrz0+UyarFnBkO7Hi47T3cvKoShN+UG7gTqFs5+Ldh4enoah 8WtiVK+wbP8XkjITjfR2Wkk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVGwzHR6u61aZAgOEUVtMUS9WLEz0WNdUuanexKUM6tGtKsbCkATyOFDg0EAm4fIDZr+0j5g== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c5da:: with SMTP id n26mr582224wmk.60.1574855911861; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 03:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w4sm18834951wrs.1.2019.11.27.03.58.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 03:58:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:58:30 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yafang Shao Cc: David Hildenbrand , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Linux MM Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, memcg: avoid oom if cgroup is not populated Message-ID: <20191127115830.GQ20912@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1574818117-2885-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 27-11-19 19:35:03, Yafang Shao wrote: [...] > > 3. I think I agree with Michal that modifying the limits smells more > > like a configuration thingy to be handled by an admin (especially, adapt > > min/max properly). But again, not sure where that change is located :) > > > > I agree with you all, but that is Michal told me to do. See above and > the disccussion in this thread. Look, I have tried to help you here. I have explained why force_empty is not a part of cgroup v2. I have suggested to use hard limit to achieve a similar outcome. The OOM killer is a natural part of the hard limit - I guess I could have been more explicit about that. As Johannes noted high limit can be used as well (you need to have a task in the memcg context for that to be effective). Since then you have tried to tweak the code here and there with a very weak justification and now you are complaining and questioning my expertise. Please think about your attitude. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs