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>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	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: [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1710041322160.67374@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171004154638.710-4-guro@fb.com>

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index b4de17a78dc1..79f30c281185 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2670,6 +2670,178 @@ static inline bool memcg_has_children(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static long memcg_oom_badness(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> +			      const nodemask_t *nodemask,
> +			      unsigned long totalpages)
> +{
> +	long points = 0;
> +	int nid;
> +	pg_data_t *pgdat;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We don't have necessary stats for the root memcg,
> +	 * so we define it's oom_score as the maximum oom_score
> +	 * of the belonging tasks.
> +	 *
> +	 * As tasks in the root memcg unlikely are parts of a
> +	 * single workload, and we don't have to implement
> +	 * group killing, this approximation is reasonable.
> +	 *
> +	 * But if we will have necessary stats for the root memcg,
> +	 * we might switch to the approach which is used for all
> +	 * other memcgs.
> +	 */
> +	if (memcg == root_mem_cgroup) {
> +		struct css_task_iter it;
> +		struct task_struct *task;
> +		long score, max_score = 0;
> +
> +		css_task_iter_start(&memcg->css, 0, &it);
> +		while ((task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) {
> +			score = oom_badness(task, memcg, nodemask,
> +					    totalpages);
> +			if (score > max_score)
> +				max_score = score;
> +		}
> +		css_task_iter_end(&it);
> +
> +		return max_score;
> +	}
> +
> +	for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) {
> +		if (nodemask && !node_isset(nid, *nodemask))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		points += mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(memcg, nid,
> +				LRU_ALL_ANON | BIT(LRU_UNEVICTABLE));
> +
> +		pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> +		points += lruvec_page_state(mem_cgroup_lruvec(pgdat, memcg),
> +					    NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE);
> +	}
> +
> +	points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_KERNEL_STACK_KB) /
> +		(PAGE_SIZE / 1024);
> +	points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_SOCK);
> +	points += memcg_page_state(memcg, MEMCG_SWAP);
> +
> +	return points;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Checks if the given memcg is a valid OOM victim and returns a number,
> + * which means the folowing:
> + *   -1: there are inflight OOM victim tasks, belonging to the memcg
> + *    0: memcg is not eligible, e.g. all belonging tasks are protected
> + *       by oom_score_adj set to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN
> + *   >0: memcg is eligible, and the returned value is an estimation
> + *       of the memory footprint
> + */
> +static long oom_evaluate_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> +			       const nodemask_t *nodemask,
> +			       unsigned long totalpages)
> +{
> +	struct css_task_iter it;
> +	struct task_struct *task;
> +	int eligible = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Memcg is OOM eligible if there are OOM killable tasks inside.
> +	 *
> +	 * We treat tasks with oom_score_adj set to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN
> +	 * as unkillable.
> +	 *
> +	 * If there are inflight OOM victim tasks inside the memcg,
> +	 * we return -1.
> +	 */
> +	css_task_iter_start(&memcg->css, 0, &it);
> +	while ((task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) {
> +		if (!eligible &&
> +		    task->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> +			eligible = 1;
> +
> +		if (tsk_is_oom_victim(task) &&
> +		    !test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &task->signal->oom_mm->flags)) {
> +			eligible = -1;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	css_task_iter_end(&it);
> +
> +	if (eligible <= 0)
> +		return eligible;
> +
> +	return memcg_oom_badness(memcg, nodemask, totalpages);
> +}
> +
> +static void select_victim_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *root, struct oom_control *oc)
> +{
> +	struct mem_cgroup *iter;
> +
> +	oc->chosen_memcg = NULL;
> +	oc->chosen_points = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The oom_score is calculated for leaf memory cgroups (including
> +	 * the root memcg).
> +	 */
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, root) {
> +		long score;
> +
> +		if (memcg_has_children(iter))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		score = oom_evaluate_memcg(iter, oc->nodemask, oc->totalpages);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Ignore empty and non-eligible memory cgroups.
> +		 */
> +		if (score == 0)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If there are inflight OOM victims, we don't need
> +		 * to look further for new victims.
> +		 */
> +		if (score == -1) {
> +			oc->chosen_memcg = INFLIGHT_VICTIM;
> +			mem_cgroup_iter_break(root, iter);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (score > oc->chosen_points) {
> +			oc->chosen_points = score;
> +			oc->chosen_memcg = iter;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (oc->chosen_memcg && oc->chosen_memcg != INFLIGHT_VICTIM)
> +		css_get(&oc->chosen_memcg->css);
> +
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +

By only considering leaf memcgs, does this penalize users if their memcg 
becomes oc->chosen_memcg purely because it has aggregated all of its 
processes to be members of that memcg, which would otherwise be the 
standard behavior?

What prevents me from spreading my memcg with N processes attached over N 
child memcgs instead so that memcg_oom_badness() becomes very small for 
each child memcg specifically to avoid being oom killed?

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-10-04 20:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-04 15:46 [v10 0/6] " Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 1/6] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 19:14   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 2/6] mm: implement mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() for the root memory cgroup Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 19:15   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-04 20:10   ` David Rientjes
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 19:27   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-04 19:51     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 20:17       ` David Rientjes
2017-10-04 20:22         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 20:31         ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05 11:14           ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04 19:48   ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-04 20:15     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 21:24       ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-05 10:27         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-05 11:12           ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 11:45             ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 20:27   ` David Rientjes [this message]
2017-10-04 20:41     ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05  8:40       ` David Rientjes
2017-10-05 10:27         ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05 21:53           ` David Rientjes
2017-10-05 10:44         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-05 22:02           ` David Rientjes
2017-10-06  5:43             ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 11:40   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 4/6] mm, oom: introduce memory.oom_group Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 19:37   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05 12:06   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 12:32     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-05 12:58       ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 5/6] mm, oom: add cgroup v2 mount option for cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 20:04   ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05 13:14     ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 13:41       ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-05 14:10         ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 14:54       ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-05 16:40         ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-05 15:51       ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-04 15:46 ` [v10 6/6] mm, oom, docs: describe the " Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 20:08   ` Johannes Weiner

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.2.10.1710041322160.67374@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --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