All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>, peterz@infradead.org
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:49:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <989570d6-639e-6385-d638-c4729665c2e4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200818101756.GA155582@chrisdown.name>

On 8/18/20 6:17 AM, Chris Down wrote:
> peterz@infradead.org writes:
>> But then how can it run-away like Waiman suggested?
>
> Probably because he's not running with that commit at all. We and 
> others use this to prevent runaway allocation on a huge range of 
> production and desktop use cases and it works just fine.
>
>> /me goes look... and finds MEMCG_MAX_HIGH_DELAY_JIFFIES.
>>
>> That's a fail... :-(
>
> I'd ask that you understand a bit more about the tradeoffs and 
> intentions of the patch before rushing in to declare its failure, 
> considering it works just fine :-)
>
> Clamping the maximal time allows the application to take some action 
> to remediate the situation, while still being slowed down 
> significantly. 2 seconds per allocation batch is still absolutely 
> plenty for any use case I've come across. If you have evidence it 
> isn't, then present that instead of vague notions of "wrongness".
>
Sorry for the late reply.

I ran some test on the latest kernel and and it seems to work as 
expected. I was running the test on an older kernel that doesn't have 
this patch and I was not aware of it before hand.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
Longman


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <longman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Chris Down <chris-6Bi1550iOqEnzZ6mRAm98g@public.gmane.org>,
	peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov
	<vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan
	<adobriyan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
	Vincent Guittot
	<vincent.guittot-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:49:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <989570d6-639e-6385-d638-c4729665c2e4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200818101756.GA155582-6Bi1550iOqEnzZ6mRAm98g@public.gmane.org>

On 8/18/20 6:17 AM, Chris Down wrote:
> peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org writes:
>> But then how can it run-away like Waiman suggested?
>
> Probably because he's not running with that commit at all. We and 
> others use this to prevent runaway allocation on a huge range of 
> production and desktop use cases and it works just fine.
>
>> /me goes look... and finds MEMCG_MAX_HIGH_DELAY_JIFFIES.
>>
>> That's a fail... :-(
>
> I'd ask that you understand a bit more about the tradeoffs and 
> intentions of the patch before rushing in to declare its failure, 
> considering it works just fine :-)
>
> Clamping the maximal time allows the application to take some action 
> to remediate the situation, while still being slowed down 
> significantly. 2 seconds per allocation batch is still absolutely 
> plenty for any use case I've come across. If you have evidence it 
> isn't, then present that instead of vague notions of "wrongness".
>
Sorry for the late reply.

I ran some test on the latest kernel and and it seems to work as 
expected. I was running the test on an older kernel that doesn't have 
this patch and I was not aware of it before hand.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,
Longman


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-08-23  2:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-17 14:08 [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained control of over memory.high action Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:30   ` Chris Down
2020-08-17 15:38     ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 16:11       ` Chris Down
2020-08-17 16:44   ` Shakeel Butt
2020-08-17 16:44     ` Shakeel Butt
2020-08-17 16:56     ` Chris Down
2020-08-18 19:12       ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18 19:14     ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] memcg, mm: Return ENOMEM or delay if memcg_over_limit Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] memcg: Allow the use of task RSS memory as over-high action trigger Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08   ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] fs/proc: Support a new procfs memctl file Waiman Long
2020-08-17 20:10   ` kernel test robot
2020-08-17 20:10   ` [RFC PATCH] fs/proc: proc_memctl_operations can be static kernel test robot
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] memcg: Allow direct per-task memory limit checking Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] memcg: Introduce additional memory control slowdown if needed Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] memcg: Enable logging of memory control mitigation action Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08   ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 14:08 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] memcg: Add over-high action prctl() documentation Waiman Long
2020-08-17 15:26 ` [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory control Michal Hocko
2020-08-17 15:55   ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 15:55     ` Waiman Long
2020-08-17 19:26     ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 19:20       ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18 19:20         ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18  9:14 ` peterz
2020-08-18  9:14   ` peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ
2020-08-18  9:26   ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18  9:26     ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18  9:59     ` peterz
2020-08-18  9:59       ` peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ
2020-08-18 10:05       ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 10:18         ` peterz
2020-08-18 10:30           ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 10:36             ` peterz
2020-08-18 13:49           ` Johannes Weiner
2020-08-18 13:49             ` Johannes Weiner
2020-08-21 19:37             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-21 19:37               ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-08-24 16:58               ` Johannes Weiner
2020-09-07 11:47                 ` Chris Down
2020-09-09 11:53                 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 10:17       ` Chris Down
2020-08-18 10:17         ` Chris Down
2020-08-18 10:26         ` peterz
2020-08-18 10:35           ` Chris Down
2020-08-23  2:49         ` Waiman Long [this message]
2020-08-23  2:49           ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18  9:27   ` Chris Down
2020-08-18  9:27     ` Chris Down
2020-08-18 10:04     ` peterz
2020-08-18 12:55       ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-18 12:55         ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-20  6:11         ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-18 19:30     ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18 19:27   ` Waiman Long

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=989570d6-639e-6385-d638-c4729665c2e4@redhat.com \
    --to=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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.