From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
ebiederm@xmission.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:19:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411181946.GC10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpEqCKSHwAmR_TR3FaQzb=jkPH1nvzvkhAG57=Pb09GVrA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
[...]
> > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > on it.
>
> Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation
> throttling that we can fall back to stop memory depletion. However
> having a way to free up resources that are not needed by a dying
> process quickly would help to avoid throttling which hurts user
> experience.
I am not opposing speeding up the exit time in general. That is a good
thing. Especially for a very large processes (e.g. a DB). But I do not
really think we want to expose an API to control this specific aspect.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-11 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-11 1:43 [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 1:43 ` [RFC 1/2] mm: oom: expose expedite_reclaim to use oom_reaper outside of oom_kill.c Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-25 21:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-04-25 21:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 1:43 ` [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:30 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 10:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 15:18 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 15:23 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 16:25 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 15:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 17:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 17:33 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 17:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:47 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 6:49 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-12 14:15 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:20 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 21:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:52 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 21:45 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-04-11 21:59 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 6:53 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-12 14:10 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:14 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 15:30 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-25 16:09 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:51 ` [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 18:12 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 19:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 20:11 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 21:11 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 16:20 ` Sandeep Patil
2019-04-11 16:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 18:19 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-04-11 19:56 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 20:17 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 17:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 11:51 ` [Lsf-pc] " Rik van Riel
2019-04-11 12:16 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
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=20190411181946.GC10383@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jrdr.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=timmurray@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhoujian@didichuxing.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).