From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, mm: account filp and names caches to kmemcg
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:56:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xr93y3nxbs3j.fsf@gthelen.svl.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171026143140.GB21147@cmpxchg.org>
Michal Hocko wrote:
> Greg Thelen wrote:
> > So a force charge fallback might be a needed even with oom killer successful
> > invocations. Or we'll need to teach out_of_memory() to return three values
> > (e.g. NO_VICTIM, NEW_VICTIM, PENDING_VICTIM) and try_charge() can loop on
> > NEW_VICTIM.
>
> No we, really want to wait for the oom victim to do its job. The only thing we
> should be worried about is when out_of_memory doesn't invoke the reaper. There
> is only one case like that AFAIK - GFP_NOFS request. I have to think about
> this case some more. We currently fail in that case the request.
Nod, but I think only wait a short time (more below). The
schedule_timeout_killable(1) in out_of_memory() seems ok to me. I don't
think there's a problem overcharging a little bit to expedite oom
killing.
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> True. I was assuming we'd retry MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES times at a maximum,
> even if the OOM killer indicates a kill has been issued. What you propose
> makes sense too.
Sounds good.
It looks like the oom reaper will wait 1 second
(MAX_OOM_REAP_RETRIES*HZ/10) before giving up and setting MMF_OOM_SKIP,
which enables the oom killer to select another victim. Repeated
try_charge() => out_of_memory() calls will return true while there's a
pending victim. After the first call, out_of_memory() doesn't appear to
sleep. So I assume try_charge() would quickly burn through
MEM_CGROUP_RECLAIM_RETRIES (5) attempts before resorting to
overcharging. IMO, this is fine because:
1) it's possible the victim wants locks held by try_charge caller. So
waiting for the oom reaper to timeout and out_of_memory to select
additional victims would kill more than required.
2) waiting 1 sec to detect a livelock between try_charge() and pending
oom victim seems unfortunate.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-26 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-05 22:21 Shakeel Butt
2017-10-06 7:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-06 19:33 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-09 6:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-09 17:52 ` Greg Thelen
2017-10-09 18:04 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-09 18:17 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-10 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-10 22:21 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-11 9:09 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-09 20:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-10 9:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-10 14:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-10 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-12 19:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-12 23:57 ` Greg Thelen
2017-10-13 6:51 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 6:35 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 7:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-13 15:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 12:18 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 17:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-24 16:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-24 16:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 17:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-24 17:55 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 18:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-24 20:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 6:51 ` Greg Thelen
2017-10-25 7:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 13:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-25 14:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 16:44 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-25 17:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 18:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-25 19:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-25 21:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-25 22:49 ` Greg Thelen
2017-10-26 7:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-26 12:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-26 14:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-26 19:56 ` Greg Thelen [this message]
2017-10-27 8:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-27 20:50 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-30 8:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-30 19:28 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-31 8:00 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-31 16:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-31 18:50 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-24 15:45 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-24 16:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-10 23:32 ` Al Viro
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=xr93y3nxbs3j.fsf@gthelen.svl.corp.google.com \
--to=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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