linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:56:24 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1708151349280.104516@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170815141350.GA4510@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> > > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > index dec5afdaa36d..22108f31e09d 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ v1 is available under Documentation/cgroup-v1/.
> > >         5-2-1. Memory Interface Files
> > >         5-2-2. Usage Guidelines
> > >         5-2-3. Memory Ownership
> > > +       5-2-4. Cgroup-aware OOM Killer
> > 
> > Random curiousness, why cgroup-aware oom killer and not memcg-aware oom 
> > killer?
> 
> I don't think we use the term "memcg" somewhere in v2 docs.
> Do you think that "Memory cgroup-aware OOM killer" is better?
> 

I think it would be better to not describe it as its own entity, but 
rather a part of how the memory cgroup works, so simply describing it in 
section 5-2, perhaps as its own subsection, as how the oom killer works 
when using the memory cgroup is sufficient.  I wouldn't separate it out as 
a distinct cgroup feature in the documentation.

> > > +	cgroups.  The default is "0".
> > > +
> > > +	Defines whether the OOM killer should treat the cgroup
> > > +	as a single entity during the victim selection.
> > 
> > Isn't this true independent of the memory.oom_kill_all_tasks setting?  
> > The cgroup aware oom killer will consider memcg's as logical units when 
> > deciding what to kill with or without memory.oom_kill_all_tasks, right?
> > 
> > I think you cover this fact in the cgroup aware oom killer section below 
> > so this might result in confusion if described alongside a setting of
> > memory.oom_kill_all_tasks.
> > 

I assume this is fixed so that it's documented that memory cgroups are 
considered logical units by the oom killer and that 
memory.oom_kill_all_tasks is separate?  The former defines the policy on 
how a memory cgroup is targeted and the latter defines the mechanism it 
uses to free memory.

> > > +	If set, OOM killer will kill all belonging tasks in
> > > +	corresponding cgroup is selected as an OOM victim.
> > 
> > Maybe
> > 
> > "If set, the OOM killer will kill all threads attached to the memcg if 
> > selected as an OOM victim."
> > 
> > is better?
> 
> Fixed to the following (to conform with core v2 concepts):
>   If set, OOM killer will kill all processes attached to the cgroup
>   if selected as an OOM victim.
> 

Thanks.

> > > +Cgroup-aware OOM Killer
> > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > +
> > > +Cgroup v2 memory controller implements a cgroup-aware OOM killer.
> > > +It means that it treats memory cgroups as first class OOM entities.
> > > +
> > > +Under OOM conditions the memory controller tries to make the best
> > > +choise of a victim, hierarchically looking for the largest memory
> > > +consumer. By default, it will look for the biggest task in the
> > > +biggest leaf cgroup.
> > > +
> > > +Be default, all cgroups have oom_priority 0, and OOM killer will
> > > +chose the largest cgroup recursively on each level. For non-root
> > > +cgroups it's possible to change the oom_priority, and it will cause
> > > +the OOM killer to look athe the priority value first, and compare
> > > +sizes only of cgroups with equal priority.
> > 
> > Maybe some description of "largest" would be helpful here?  I think you 
> > could briefly describe what is accounted for in the decisionmaking.
> 
> I'm afraid that it's too implementation-defined to be described.
> Do you have an idea, how to describe it without going too much into details?
> 

The point is that "largest cgroup" is ambiguous here: largest in what 
sense?  The cgroup with the largest number of processes attached?  Using 
the largest amount of memory?

I think the documentation should clearly define that the oom killer 
selects the memory cgroup that has the most memory managed at each level.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-15 20:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-14 18:32 [v5 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 2/4] mm, oom: " Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:42   ` David Rientjes
2017-08-15 12:15     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 12:20       ` Aleksa Sarai
2017-08-15 12:57         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 21:47       ` David Rientjes
2017-08-16 15:43         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-21  0:50           ` David Rientjes
2017-08-21  9:46             ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-22 17:03   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 16:20     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 17:24       ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 18:04         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 23:13           ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 3/4] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:44   ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:52   ` David Rientjes
2017-08-15 14:13     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 20:56       ` David Rientjes [this message]
2017-08-16 14:43         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-17 12:16         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-21  0:41           ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 22:00 ` [v5 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function David Rientjes
2017-08-22 17:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 12:30   ` Roman Gushchin

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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1708151349280.104516@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=tj@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