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=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 57DD7C4338F for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE99610A7 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:13:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org ACE99610A7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 337E96B0073; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2E6946B0074; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:13:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1D5AA6B0075; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:13:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0231.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.231]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048136B0073 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07C48249980 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:13:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78488394936.16.A22F0D5 Received: from mail-qv1-f46.google.com (mail-qv1-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70905F003E4D for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qv1-f46.google.com with SMTP id bl13so1729675qvb.5 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rg02+w1DlkJobhoJY9bM97YQwIjcX3dhjCH/vsEFgP0=; b=IJM3/57oMfrwBGTxX1IHTSufxeq6P3Ds6XRZvE9DZaQYu6SrVcwDRerEYF25qu7X1B P60N9RrgrRNag8tqLyPwd2wzaLi9O55qN9diwm9sZAtemcAodh0vkx7GORHTW9R5W2LY rV/W0SNTLdFLW8cLcW0Qu/6ySAJpxaO6I9bAxGJSjR5kQXqiY7nMpO/wVGbIlV0HDfjw dYuz+g7ZxYVhUxmQisLCpNH+9kMNrqw8fYLGpqtTiUzPzHScZLMpGUR7odgvREoOGyvq uG3PAzekn0lUz/hG2/KBgIhbNa18vFUOGqnNMOmaodYK+aTh4+ylfiWpcrP7Zlm5Pd0x G6kA== 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; bh=rg02+w1DlkJobhoJY9bM97YQwIjcX3dhjCH/vsEFgP0=; b=l13yiV0voc+FPSyalf0U/u/blfWVDe1g0hGA3pAtUvriyhEGNhtuR/9mffeGMugdOP +t5c5+yS4xCt4y0XZmRWqqwVvLSBuzanOoyYY6KKph+NT0hTVr4vNURLKecLVOS6wQnV cS3IGu5U9V7wj3/0vkAb3eiGy9J13wepVkhew0pRV7u364ERd+DxahXv08y58JjuodB5 zyq5NTEmjvHyHozt4jvytIyyqMT577vgfBnC8jSwQ7g6c3hKekVy7dGlNiU5fm+W6m+c mE1yfCOdhV5TB2j2JOv54IVhGiVGmTL4k2Ry90RcQzjV+IBkfChoRRykpBeKIidSBIbZ B56g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53303PyCI4Be/TcohIDffV8xPQ3pIjccbzowbOcGxoYBCuKx8xBr qJzeECWkedFuv/vmXHRbLtzDVg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/+BjLkxJrAxTTKQlm/p7qbbRBNIQAU4NUKJL55u3lLL5nfMNPDLp17j/ZoFTBbZcRaBPgGw== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fd21:: with SMTP id i1mr9140058qvs.29.1629296026700; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpe-98-15-154-102.hvc.res.rr.com. [98.15.154.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o10sm59259qtv.31.2021.08.18.07.13.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:15:24 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , Leon Yang , Chris Down , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim Message-ID: References: <20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 70905F003E4D Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b="IJM3/57o"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: ucpfcpu4uo5kcziae7mnqr9bmztd7yhp X-HE-Tag: 1629296027-209233 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 Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:45:18PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:05:06PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > We've noticed occasional OOM killing when memory.low settings are in > > effect for cgroups. This is unexpected and undesirable as memory.low > > is supposed to express non-OOMing memory priorities between cgroups. > > > > The reason for this is proportional memory.low reclaim. When cgroups > > are below their memory.low threshold, reclaim passes them over in the > > first round, and then retries if it couldn't find pages anywhere else. > > But when cgroups are slighly above their memory.low setting, page scan > > force is scaled down and diminished in proportion to the overage, to > > the point where it can cause reclaim to fail as well - only in that > > case we currently don't retry, and instead trigger OOM. > > > > To fix this, hook proportional reclaim into the same retry logic we > > have in place for when cgroups are skipped entirely. This way if > > reclaim fails and some cgroups were scanned with dimished pressure, > > we'll try another full-force cycle before giving up and OOMing. > > > > Reported-by: Leon Yang > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Thank you. > I guess it's a stable material, so maybe adding: > Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Yes, that Fixes makes sense. Plus: Cc: # 5.4+ I initially didn't tag it because the issue is over two years old and we've had no other reports of this. But thinking about it, it's probably more a lack of users rather than severity. At FB we only noticed with a recent rollout of memory_recursiveprot (8a931f801340c2be10552c7b5622d5f4852f3a36) because we didn't have working memory.low configurations before that. But now that we do notice, it's a problem worth fixing. So yes, stable makes sense. Thanks.