From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:25:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170925202442.lmcmvqwy2jj2tr5h@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170925181533.GA15918@castle>
On Mon 25-09-17 19:15:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> I'm not against this model, as I've said before. It feels logical,
> and will work fine in most cases.
>
> In this case we can drop any mount/boot options, because it preserves
> the existing behavior in the default configuration. A big advantage.
I am not sure about this. We still need an opt-in, ragardless, because
selecting the largest process from the largest memcg != selecting the
largest task (just consider memcgs with many processes example).
> The only thing, I'm slightly concerned, that due to the way how we calculate
> the memory footprint for tasks and memory cgroups, we will have a number
> of weird edge cases. For instance, when putting a single process into
> the group_oom memcg will alter the oom_score significantly and result
> in significantly different chances to be killed. An obvious example will
> be a task with oom_score_adj set to any non-extreme (other than 0 and -1000)
> value, but it can also happen in case of constrained alloc, for instance.
I am not sure I understand. Are you talking about root memcg comparing
to other memcgs?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:25:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170925202442.lmcmvqwy2jj2tr5h@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170925181533.GA15918@castle>
On Mon 25-09-17 19:15:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> I'm not against this model, as I've said before. It feels logical,
> and will work fine in most cases.
>
> In this case we can drop any mount/boot options, because it preserves
> the existing behavior in the default configuration. A big advantage.
I am not sure about this. We still need an opt-in, ragardless, because
selecting the largest process from the largest memcg != selecting the
largest task (just consider memcgs with many processes example).
> The only thing, I'm slightly concerned, that due to the way how we calculate
> the memory footprint for tasks and memory cgroups, we will have a number
> of weird edge cases. For instance, when putting a single process into
> the group_oom memcg will alter the oom_score significantly and result
> in significantly different chances to be killed. An obvious example will
> be a task with oom_score_adj set to any non-extreme (other than 0 and -1000)
> value, but it can also happen in case of constrained alloc, for instance.
I am not sure I understand. Are you talking about root memcg comparing
to other memcgs?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
Vladimir Davydov
<vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel-1yMVhJb1mP/7nzcFbJAaVXf5DAMn2ifp@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:25:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170925202442.lmcmvqwy2jj2tr5h@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170925181533.GA15918@castle>
On Mon 25-09-17 19:15:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> I'm not against this model, as I've said before. It feels logical,
> and will work fine in most cases.
>
> In this case we can drop any mount/boot options, because it preserves
> the existing behavior in the default configuration. A big advantage.
I am not sure about this. We still need an opt-in, ragardless, because
selecting the largest process from the largest memcg != selecting the
largest task (just consider memcgs with many processes example).
> The only thing, I'm slightly concerned, that due to the way how we calculate
> the memory footprint for tasks and memory cgroups, we will have a number
> of weird edge cases. For instance, when putting a single process into
> the group_oom memcg will alter the oom_score significantly and result
> in significantly different chances to be killed. An obvious example will
> be a task with oom_score_adj set to any non-extreme (other than 0 and -1000)
> value, but it can also happen in case of constrained alloc, for instance.
I am not sure I understand. Are you talking about root memcg comparing
to other memcgs?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-25 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 168+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-11 13:17 [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` [v8 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 20:51 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-11 20:51 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-14 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-14 13:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-11 13:17 ` [v8 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-13 20:46 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 20:46 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 21:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-13 21:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-13 21:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` [v8 3/4] mm, oom: add cgroup v2 mount option for " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 20:48 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-11 20:48 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-12 20:01 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-12 20:01 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-12 20:23 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-12 20:23 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 12:23 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-13 12:23 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-11 13:17 ` [v8 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 13:17 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-11 20:44 ` [v8 0/4] " David Rientjes
2017-09-11 20:44 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-13 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-13 20:46 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 20:46 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-14 13:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-14 13:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-14 20:07 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-14 20:07 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-13 21:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-13 21:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-14 13:40 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-14 13:40 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-14 16:05 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-14 16:05 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-15 10:58 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-15 10:58 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-15 15:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-15 15:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-15 19:55 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-15 19:55 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-15 21:08 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-15 21:08 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-18 6:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 6:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 15:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-18 15:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-18 15:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-21 8:30 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-21 8:30 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-19 20:54 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-19 20:54 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-20 22:24 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-20 22:24 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-21 8:27 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-21 8:27 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-18 6:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 6:16 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-19 20:51 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-19 20:51 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-18 6:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-18 6:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-20 21:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-20 21:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-20 21:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-25 12:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-25 12:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-25 17:00 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-25 17:00 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-25 18:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-25 18:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-25 20:25 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-09-25 20:25 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-25 20:25 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 10:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-26 10:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-26 11:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 11:21 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 12:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-26 12:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-26 12:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-26 13:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 13:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 17:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-26 17:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-27 3:37 ` Tim Hockin
2017-09-27 3:37 ` Tim Hockin
2017-09-27 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 10:19 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 10:19 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 10:19 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 15:35 ` Tim Hockin
2017-09-27 15:35 ` Tim Hockin
2017-09-27 16:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 16:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 18:11 ` Tim Hockin
2017-09-27 18:11 ` Tim Hockin
2017-10-01 23:29 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-01 23:29 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 11:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-02 11:56 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-02 12:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 12:24 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 12:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-02 12:47 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-02 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 19:00 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 19:00 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 19:28 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 19:28 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 19:45 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 19:45 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 19:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 19:56 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 20:00 ` Tim Hockin
2017-10-02 20:00 ` Tim Hockin
2017-10-02 20:08 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 20:08 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 20:09 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 20:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 20:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 20:24 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 20:24 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-10-02 20:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-02 20:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-10-02 20:55 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-02 20:55 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-25 22:21 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-25 22:21 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-26 8:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 8:46 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-26 21:04 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-26 21:04 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-27 7:37 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 7:37 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 9:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 9:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-21 14:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-21 14:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-21 21:17 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-21 21:17 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-21 21:17 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-21 21:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-21 21:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-22 20:53 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-22 20:53 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-22 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-22 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-22 15:44 ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-22 20:39 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-22 20:39 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-22 20:39 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-22 21:05 ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-22 21:05 ` Tejun Heo
2017-09-23 8:16 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-23 8:16 ` David Rientjes
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=20170925202442.lmcmvqwy2jj2tr5h@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--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=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.