From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:55:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVxnUZzR+rjRrGU3@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b89715b5-6df7-34a3-f7b9-efa8e0eefd3e@virtuozzo.com>
On Tue 05-10-21 16:52:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
> v3: no functional changes, just improved patch description
You haven't addressed my review feedback regarding the oom invocation.
Let me paste it here again:
: > @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
: > * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
: > * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
: > */
: > - ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
: > + ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
:
: task_is_dying check will prevent the oom killer for dying tasks. There
: is an additional bail out at out_of_memory layer. These checks are now
: leading to a completely different behavior. Currently we simply use
: "unlimited" reserves and therefore we do not have to kill any task. Now
: the charge fails without using all reclaim measures. So I believe we
: should drop those checks for memcg oom paths. I have to think about this
: some more because I might be missing some other side effects.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>
To: Vasily Averin <vvs-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
Vladimir Davydov
<vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel-1yMVhJb1mP/7nzcFbJAaVXf5DAMn2ifp@public.gmane.org>,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
kernel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:55:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVxnUZzR+rjRrGU3@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b89715b5-6df7-34a3-f7b9-efa8e0eefd3e-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>
On Tue 05-10-21 16:52:31, Vasily Averin wrote:
> v3: no functional changes, just improved patch description
You haven't addressed my review feedback regarding the oom invocation.
Let me paste it here again:
: > @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
: > * A few threads which were not waiting at mutex_lock_killable() can
: > * fail to bail out. Therefore, check again after holding oom_lock.
: > */
: > - ret = should_force_charge() || out_of_memory(&oc);
: > + ret = task_is_dying() || out_of_memory(&oc);
:
: task_is_dying check will prevent the oom killer for dying tasks. There
: is an additional bail out at out_of_memory layer. These checks are now
: leading to a completely different behavior. Currently we simply use
: "unlimited" reserves and therefore we do not have to kill any task. Now
: the charge fails without using all reclaim measures. So I believe we
: should drop those checks for memcg oom paths. I have to think about this
: some more because I might be missing some other side effects.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-05 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-10 12:39 [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks Vasily Averin
2021-09-10 13:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-10 13:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-10 13:20 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-10 13:20 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-10 14:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 8:29 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 8:29 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-17 8:06 ` [PATCH mm] vmalloc: back off when the current task is OOM-killed Vasily Averin
2021-09-17 8:06 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-19 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2021-09-19 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2021-09-20 1:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2021-09-20 10:59 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-20 10:59 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-21 18:55 ` Andrew Morton
2021-09-22 6:18 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-22 12:27 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-22 12:27 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-23 6:49 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-23 6:49 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-24 7:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-24 7:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-27 9:36 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-27 9:36 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-27 11:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-27 11:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-05 13:52 ` [PATCH mm v2] " Vasily Averin
2021-10-05 13:52 ` Vasily Averin
2021-10-05 14:00 ` Vasily Averin
2021-10-05 14:00 ` Vasily Averin
2021-10-07 10:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-07 10:47 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-07 19:55 ` Andrew Morton
2021-10-07 19:55 ` Andrew Morton
2021-09-10 13:07 ` [PATCH memcg] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks Vasily Averin
2021-09-10 13:07 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 7:51 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 7:51 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 8:39 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 8:39 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 9:37 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 9:37 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 10:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 10:10 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 8:53 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 10:35 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 10:35 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-13 10:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-13 10:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-14 10:01 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-14 10:01 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-14 10:10 ` [PATCH memcg v2] " Vasily Averin
2021-09-14 10:10 ` Vasily Averin
2021-09-16 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-09-16 12:55 ` Michal Hocko
2021-10-05 13:52 ` [PATCH memcg v3] " Vasily Averin
2021-10-05 13:52 ` Vasily Averin
2021-10-05 14:55 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2021-10-05 14:55 ` Michal Hocko
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=YVxnUZzR+rjRrGU3@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=vvs@virtuozzo.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.