From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: stop reclaiming if GFP_ATOMIC will start failing soon
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:43:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200429114329.GB28637@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bcf6d15f-cbdb-8c45-6087-a0f2aab737c6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On Wed 29-04-20 19:45:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2020/04/29 18:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Completely agreed! The in kernel OOM killer is to deal with situations
> > when memory is desperately depleted without any sign of a forward
> > progress. If there is a reclaimable memory then we are not there yet.
> > If a workload can benefit from early oom killing based on response time
> > then we have facilities to achieve that (e.g. PSI).
>
> Can PSI work even if userspace process cannot avoid reclaimable memory
> allocations (e.g. page fault, file read) is already stalling?
The userspace itself would have to be careful and use mlock of course.
But collecting the psi information itself should be pretty independent
on memory allocations as monitoring the system memory state is one of
the main usecases.
> I'm not sure
> whether PSI allows responding quickly enough to "keep reclaimable memory
> allocations not to reclaim" despite there is still reclaimable memory...
PSI is supposed to monitor time spent in the memory allocator (among
other things) and report the tendency. This should be a sufficient
metric to judge that a large part of the userspace is not making forward
progress.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-29 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-24 20:48 David Rientjes
2020-04-25 0:32 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-26 0:27 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-26 3:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-27 3:12 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-27 5:03 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-27 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-27 23:03 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-27 23:35 ` Andrew Morton
2020-04-28 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-29 8:31 ` peter enderborg
2020-04-29 9:00 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-28 9:38 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-04-28 21:48 ` David Rientjes
2020-04-28 23:37 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-29 7:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-04-29 9:04 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-29 10:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-29 11:43 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-04-27 8:20 ` peter enderborg
2020-04-27 15:01 ` 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=20200429114329.GB28637@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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