From: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:17:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200818101756.GA155582@chrisdown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200818095910.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-18 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ 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 16:56 ` 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 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] fs/proc: Support a new procfs memctl file Waiman Long
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 ` [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 19:26 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 19:20 ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18 9:14 ` peterz
2020-08-18 9:26 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-18 9:59 ` peterz
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
2020-08-21 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 [this message]
2020-08-18 10:26 ` peterz
2020-08-18 10:35 ` Chris Down
2020-08-23 2:49 ` Waiman Long
2020-08-18 9:27 ` Chris Down
2020-08-18 10:04 ` peterz
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=20200818101756.GA155582@chrisdown.name \
--to=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--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=longman@redhat.com \
--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 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).