From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Leon Yang <lnyng@fb.com>, Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:16:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YR0WW2VvgtUHK1HL@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod7097PHnXoOUZzPpmkASKpL3rV+2UJ+zp-NCdkpVoFTWg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:10:16PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:03 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> 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
>
> *slightly
>
> > 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,
>
> *diminished
Oops. Andrew, would you mind folding these into the checkpatch fixlet?
> > we'll try another full-force cycle before giving up and OOMing.
> >
> > Reported-by: Leon Yang <lnyng@fb.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>
> Should this be considered for stable?
Yes, I think so after all. Please see my reply to Roman.
> Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Thanks Shakeel!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-18 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-17 18:05 Johannes Weiner
2021-08-17 18:44 ` Rik van Riel
2021-08-17 19:10 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-08-18 14:16 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2021-08-17 19:14 ` Andrew Morton
2021-08-17 19:45 ` Roman Gushchin
2021-08-18 14:15 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-08-18 20:18 ` Chris Down
2021-08-19 15:01 ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-19 20:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-08-20 15:44 ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-23 16:09 ` Michal Koutný
2021-08-23 17:48 ` Johannes Weiner
2021-08-24 13:01 ` Michal Koutný
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=YR0WW2VvgtUHK1HL@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lnyng@fb.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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