From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B37C18E5A for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AB520637 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:39:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583915944; bh=1ypkZigz8H7QMG1SYMZpTh72qlp3GGyzzWk3Y+8utJc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=w9EH5ASoO+ojQK2B7IQGMSXqlcWeRYr494QkGlLmUE8xtxYjcn+EmcSazxU4vzk6W i9DlUYqKXoAW9OpUPdLBJl47z3g5KN/sbKgbhduXGROsNYgvonATOVJWSvaHTphrng nLJ9+iuTFAu9Wp3h8oQzIuW+i5UwBKwa/SrMBJwo= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728632AbgCKIjD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 04:39:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:44659 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728263AbgCKIjD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 04:39:03 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id l18so1395918wru.11 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:39:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=C83D13RbbLMx100lu80tj5F+qur1iKkMPkCCyf8642M=; b=qgmR9LE0krcismS1swJKI4gB90CjjCXHhgw83BxO8WRSBjMPILGxZ4XkBGSn1FUHyn LRtAIscXPPjirZ6py0Bkkl1Vwd6topbKsuSTtwku04iMbpMxXsExfNbkHT/LLV5rj6TA TmPfLdtq59s9BjiGHeh6dQx8gz5Z8KhLxxpzbmqyzLlV0OzkeLbtubd54S7r+MRZ5iiQ 3MHOnKMOP99/1sUua6ZczQkIfT0ZCMu+7A5a0sbCmr47Wb9DPhsIp9xvYUKAAquRjg34 0qtGH2y5w/QZpeIsxoU9CIHB+0w3mFFuTZjhXIEiUVHGVjr0wJ5yaJ1hSRgNP0Q5SxqK 5meg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2DEKdwCNMqbRscuUvIKGtG9NE5tCF4q3Xaa5qOtLl3OUI3xYhw KMUtH+dDlubCOcFDr5VGTfqUwzQS X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vs7t+U0ceJGkiZIaqRViEUlJVUvfjKGh7J9G6TaUk8MKCJbZ3ArKDHjsJXiBHb/gwLkAl4WmA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f105:: with SMTP id r5mr3155919wro.314.1583915941473; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm1455019wrr.62.2020.03.11.01.39.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:39:00 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Robert Kolchmeyer , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: make a last minute check to prevent unnecessary memcg oom kills Message-ID: <20200311083900.GC23944@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200310221938.GF8447@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 10-03-20 15:54:44, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 10-03-20 14:55:50, David Rientjes wrote: > > > Killing a user process as a result of hitting memcg limits is a serious > > > decision that is unfortunately needed only when no forward progress in > > > reclaiming memory can be made. > > > > > > Deciding the appropriate oom victim can take a sufficient amount of time > > > that allows another process that is exiting to actually uncharge to the > > > same memcg hierarchy and prevent unnecessarily killing user processes. > > > > > > An example is to prevent *multiple* unnecessary oom kills on a system > > > with two cores where the oom kill occurs when there is an abundance of > > > free memory available: > > > > > > Memory cgroup out of memory: Killed process 628 (repro) total-vm:41944kB, anon-rss:40888kB, file-rss:496kB, shmem-rss:0kB, UID:0 pgtables:116kB oom_score_adj:0 > > > > > > repro invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xcc0(GFP_KERNEL), order=0, oom_score_adj=0 > > > CPU: 1 PID: 629 Comm: repro Not tainted 5.6.0-rc5+ #130 > > > Call Trace: > > > dump_stack+0x78/0xb6 > > > dump_header+0x55/0x240 > > > oom_kill_process+0xc5/0x170 > > > out_of_memory+0x305/0x4a0 > > > try_charge+0x77b/0xac0 > > > mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x10a/0x220 > > > mem_cgroup_try_charge_delay+0x1e/0x40 > > > handle_mm_fault+0xdf2/0x15f0 > > > do_user_addr_fault+0x21f/0x420 > > > async_page_fault+0x2f/0x40 > > > memory: usage 61336kB, limit 102400kB, failcnt 74 > > > > > > Notice the second memcg oom kill shows usage is >40MB below its limit of > > > 100MB but a process is still unnecessarily killed because the decision has > > > already been made to oom kill by calling out_of_memory() before the > > > initial victim had a chance to uncharge its memory. > > > > Could you be more specific about the specific workload please? > > > > Robert, could you elaborate on the user-visible effects of this issue that > caused it to initially get reported? Yes please, real life usecases are important when adding hacks like this one and we should have a clear data to support the check actually helps (in how many instances etc...) -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs