linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@huawei.com>
Cc: rientjes@google.com, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, ziy@nvidia.com,
	matthew.brost@intel.com, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com,
	rakie.kim@sk.com, byungchul@sk.com, gourry@gourry.net,
	ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: kill current in OOM when binding to cpu-less nodes
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 11:10:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aLqo9NKQ-xDfJ-14@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87e085b9-3c7d-4687-8513-eadd7f37d68a@huawei.com>

On Fri 05-09-25 16:18:43, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
> 
> 在 2025/9/5 16:08, Michal Hocko 写道:
> > On Fri 05-09-25 09:56:03, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
> > > 在 2025/9/4 22:25, Michal Hocko 写道:
> > > > On Thu 04-09-25 21:44:31, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
> > > > > out_of_memory() selects tasks without considering mempolicy. Assuming a
> > > > > cpu-less NUMA Node, ordinary process that don't set mempolicy don't
> > > > > allocate memory from this cpu-less Node, unless other NUMA Nodes are below
> > > > > low watermark. If a task binds to this cpu-less Node and triggers OOM, many
> > > > > tasks may be killed wrongly that don't occupy memory from this Node.
> > > > I can see how a miconfigured task that binds _only_ to memoryless nodes
> > > > should be killed but this is not what the patch does, right?  Could you
> > > > tell us more about the specific situation?
> > > We have some cpu-less NUMA Nodes, the memory are hotpluged in, and the zone
> > > is configured as ZONE_MOVABLE to guarantee these used memory can be migrated when
> > > we want to offline the NUMA Node.
> > > 
> > > Generally tasks doesn't configure any mempolicy and use the default mempolicy, i.e.
> > > allocate from NUMA Node where the task is running on, and fallback to other NUMA Nodes
> > > when the local NUMA Node is below low watermark.As a result, these cpu-less NUMA Nodes
> > > won't be allocated until the NUMA Nodes with cpus are with low memory. However, These
> > > cpu-less NUMA Nodes are configured as ZONE_MOVABLE, can't be used by kernel allocation,
> > > leading to OOM with large amount of MOVABLE memory.
> > Right, this is a fundamental constrain of movable zones. They cannot
> > satisfy non-movable allocations and you can get OOM for those requests
> > even if there is plenty of movable memory available. This is no
> > different from highmem systems and kernel allocations.
> > 
> > > To avoid it, we make some tasks binds to these cpu-less NUMA Nodes to use these memory.
> > > When these tasks trigger OOM, tasks that don't use these cpu-less NUMA Nodes may be killed
> > > according to rss.Even worse, after one task is killed, the allocating task find there is
> > > still no memory, triggers OOM again and kills another wrong task.
> > Let's see whether I follow you here. So you are binding some tasks to movable
> > nodes only and if their allocation fails you want to kill that task
> > rather than invoking mempolicy OOM killer as that could kill tasks
> > which are not constrained to movable nodes, right?
> 
> Yes. It't difficult to kill tasks that use movable nodes memory, because we have
> no information of per-numa rss of each task. So, kill current task is the simplest way
> to avoid killing wrongly.

There were attempts to make the oom killer cpuset aware. This would
allow to constrain the oom killer to a cpuset for which we cannot
satisfy the allocation for. I do not remember details why this reach
meargable state. Have you considered something like that as an option?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-05  9:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-04 13:44 Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-04 14:25 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  1:56   ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  8:08     ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  8:18       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  9:10         ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2025-09-05  9:25           ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-05  9:42             ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-06  1:56               ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08  7:46                 ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-08  8:16                   ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08  9:11                     ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-08 11:07                       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 11:13                       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 11:26                         ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-05  9:13   ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-04 14:26 ` Joshua Hahn
2025-09-04 14:36   ` Michal Hocko
2025-09-04 14:43     ` Joshua Hahn
2025-09-05  2:05       ` Jinjiang Tu
2025-09-08 17:50 ` Gregory Price

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=aLqo9NKQ-xDfJ-14@tiehlicka \
    --to=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=byungchul@sk.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=tujinjiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.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