Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: break evaluation when a task has been selected

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Mon 06-06-22 10:33:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 04-06-22 18:35:19, Zackary Liu wrote:
> > 
> > On Jun 1 2022, at 3:45 pm, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat 14-05-22 15:52:28, Zhaoyu Liu wrote:
> > >> oom points no longer need to be calculated if a task is oom_task_origin(),
> > >> so return 1 to stop the oom_evaluate_task().
> > > 
> > > This doesn't really explain why this is really desired. Is this a fix,
> > > optimization?
> > > 
> > > Please also note that this change has some side effects. For one, the
> > > task marked as oom origin will get killed even if there is still a
> > > pending oom victim which hasn't been fully dismantled. Is this
> > > intentional?
> > 
> > Thank you very much for reminding.
> > 
> > From my point of view, the victim was marked in the last oom, and now it
> > has entered the oom again, which means that the system still has no
> > deprecated memory available.
> 
> This is not an unusual situation. OOM victims can take some time to die
> and release their memory. The oom_reaper is there to fast forward that
> process and guarantee a forward progress. But this can still take some
> time. Our general policy is to back off when there is an alive oom
> victim encountered. Have a look at the tsk_is_oom_victim test in
> oom_evaluate_task. For that heuristic to be effective the whole task
> list (wether the global one or memcg) has to be evaluated.
> 
> > In order to ensure that the system can
> > return to normal as soon as possible, killing the origin task
> > immediately should be A good choice, and the role of this patch is to
> > end oom_evaluate_task and return true as soon as the origin task is found.
> 
> Could you be more specific how does this patch guarantees a forward
> progress? What is the actual usecase that benefits from this change?
> 
> These are all important information for future reference. Please note I
> am not saying the patch is wrong. I just still do not see why it is
> useful.
> 
> > Maybe this patch is not the optimal solution, it has a trade-off.
> 
> If there are trade-offs, please document them in the changelog.
> 
> The way I see it is that oom_task_origin heuristic has been introduced
> to help killing swapoff operation because the swapped out memory doesn't
> fit into memory. This is a very reasonable thing to do in general but it
> also represents an early failure visible to the userspace. If there is a
> pre-existing oom victim then I would argue that we should try to avoid
> the failure.

Andrew, please drop this patch from your tree. I do not see any real
justification here.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs