From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: fix inconsistent oom event behavior
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 08:35:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALOAHbDa4BO2btFoMpqqPg6GQF47RSii=f+ZH6ONAqhQA=Z8KA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod56skzRJNAmtXo=VxtoVAgkamZekEh0K0SBV=D96BA7Yg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:06 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:04 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > A recent commit 9852ae3fe529 ("mm, memcg: consider subtrees in
> > memory.events") changes the behavior of memcg events, which will
> > consider subtrees in memory.events. But oom_kill event is a special one
> > as it is used in both cgroup1 and cgroup2. In cgroup1, it is displayed
> > in memory.oom_control. The file memory.oom_control is in both root memcg
> > and non root memcg, that is different with memory.event as it only in
> > non-root memcg. That commit is okay for cgroup2, but it is not okay for
> > cgroup1 as it will cause inconsistent behavior between root memcg and
> > non-root memcg.
>
> I still couldn't understand the cgroup v1's root vs non_root behavior
> change. The behavior change I see is the hierarchical one i.e.
> MEMCG_OOM_KILL event in the descendant will cause the notification and
> count increment in the ancestors even in the cgroup v1.
For the non-root memcg, its memory.oom_control(oom_kill) includes its
descendants' oom_kill, but for root memcg, it doesn't include its
descendants' oom_kill. That means, memory.oom_control(oom_kill) has
different meanings in different memcgs. That is inconsistent.
[snip]
> I suppose we
> don't want that behavior change in v1.
>
That is another topic. I think this feature is welcomed to cgroup1, if
we can fully support it, for example by adding memory.events.local
into cgroup1 as well, but as far as I know the cgroup1 is frozen.
> > Let's recover the original behavior for cgroup1.
> >
> > Fixes: 9852ae3fe529 ("mm, memcg: consider subtrees in memory.events")
> > Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index 8c340e6b347f..a0ae080a67d1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -798,7 +798,8 @@ static inline void memcg_memory_event(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > atomic_long_inc(&memcg->memory_events[event]);
> > cgroup_file_notify(&memcg->events_file);
> >
> > - if (cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS)
> > + if (cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_LOCAL_EVENTS ||
> > + !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys))
> > break;
> > } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) &&
> > !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg));
> > --
> > 2.18.2
> >
Thanks
Yafang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-14 0:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-12 14:04 Yafang Shao
2020-04-13 17:05 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-04-14 0:35 ` Yafang Shao [this message]
2020-04-14 0:53 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-04-14 0:57 ` Yafang Shao
2020-04-14 1:07 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-04-13 19:31 ` Chris Down
2020-04-14 0:41 ` Yafang Shao
2020-04-14 18:19 ` Chris Down
2020-04-18 0:23 ` Yafang Shao
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='CALOAHbDa4BO2btFoMpqqPg6GQF47RSii=f+ZH6ONAqhQA=Z8KA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.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