Re: [patch] mm, oom: stop reclaiming if GFP_ATOMIC will start failing soon

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Wed 29-04-20 10:31:41, peter enderborg wrote:
> On 4/28/20 9:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 27-04-20 16:35:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > [...]
> >> No consumer of GFP_ATOMIC memory should consume an unbounded amount of
> >> it.
> >> Subsystems such as networking will consume a certain amount and
> >> will then start recycling it.  The total amount in-flight will vary
> >> over the longer term as workloads change.  A dynamically tuning
> >> threshold system will need to adapt rapidly enough to sudden load
> >> shifts, which might require unreasonable amounts of headroom.
> > I do agree. __GFP_HIGH/__GFP_ATOMIC are bound by the size of the
> > reserves under memory pressure. Then allocatios start failing very
> > quickly and users have to cope with that, usually by deferring to a
> > sleepable context. Tuning reserves dynamically for heavy reserves
> > consumers would be possible but I am worried that this is far from
> > trivial.
> >
> > We definitely need to understand what is going on here.  Why doesn't
> > kswapd + N*direct reclaimers do not provide enough memory to satisfy
> > both N threads + reserves consumers? How many times those direct
> > reclaimers have to retry?
> 
> Was this not supposed to be avoided with PSI, user-space should
> a fair change to take actions before it goes bad in user-space?

Yes, PSI is certainly a tool to help userspace make actions on heavy
reclaim. And I agree that if there is a desire to trigger the oom killer
early as David states elsewhere in the thread then this approach should
be considered.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs