From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v5 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:43:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170816144344.GA29131@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1708151349280.104516@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:56:24PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > > index dec5afdaa36d..22108f31e09d 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt
> > > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ v1 is available under Documentation/cgroup-v1/.
> > > > 5-2-1. Memory Interface Files
> > > > 5-2-2. Usage Guidelines
> > > > 5-2-3. Memory Ownership
> > > > + 5-2-4. Cgroup-aware OOM Killer
> > >
> > > Random curiousness, why cgroup-aware oom killer and not memcg-aware oom
> > > killer?
> >
> > I don't think we use the term "memcg" somewhere in v2 docs.
> > Do you think that "Memory cgroup-aware OOM killer" is better?
> >
>
> I think it would be better to not describe it as its own entity, but
> rather a part of how the memory cgroup works, so simply describing it in
> section 5-2, perhaps as its own subsection, as how the oom killer works
> when using the memory cgroup is sufficient. I wouldn't separate it out as
> a distinct cgroup feature in the documentation.
Ok I've got the idea, let me look, what I can do.
I'll post an updated version soon.
>
> > > > + cgroups. The default is "0".
> > > > +
> > > > + Defines whether the OOM killer should treat the cgroup
> > > > + as a single entity during the victim selection.
> > >
> > > Isn't this true independent of the memory.oom_kill_all_tasks setting?
> > > The cgroup aware oom killer will consider memcg's as logical units when
> > > deciding what to kill with or without memory.oom_kill_all_tasks, right?
> > >
> > > I think you cover this fact in the cgroup aware oom killer section below
> > > so this might result in confusion if described alongside a setting of
> > > memory.oom_kill_all_tasks.
> > >
>
> I assume this is fixed so that it's documented that memory cgroups are
> considered logical units by the oom killer and that
> memory.oom_kill_all_tasks is separate? The former defines the policy on
> how a memory cgroup is targeted and the latter defines the mechanism it
> uses to free memory.
Yes, I've fixed this. Thanks!
> > > > +Cgroup-aware OOM Killer
> > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > +
> > > > +Cgroup v2 memory controller implements a cgroup-aware OOM killer.
> > > > +It means that it treats memory cgroups as first class OOM entities.
> > > > +
> > > > +Under OOM conditions the memory controller tries to make the best
> > > > +choise of a victim, hierarchically looking for the largest memory
> > > > +consumer. By default, it will look for the biggest task in the
> > > > +biggest leaf cgroup.
> > > > +
> > > > +Be default, all cgroups have oom_priority 0, and OOM killer will
> > > > +chose the largest cgroup recursively on each level. For non-root
> > > > +cgroups it's possible to change the oom_priority, and it will cause
> > > > +the OOM killer to look athe the priority value first, and compare
> > > > +sizes only of cgroups with equal priority.
> > >
> > > Maybe some description of "largest" would be helpful here? I think you
> > > could briefly describe what is accounted for in the decisionmaking.
> >
> > I'm afraid that it's too implementation-defined to be described.
> > Do you have an idea, how to describe it without going too much into details?
> >
>
> The point is that "largest cgroup" is ambiguous here: largest in what
> sense? The cgroup with the largest number of processes attached? Using
> the largest amount of memory?
>
> I think the documentation should clearly define that the oom killer
> selects the memory cgroup that has the most memory managed at each level.
No problems, I'll add a clarification.
Thank you!
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-16 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-14 18:32 [v5 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 2/4] mm, oom: " Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:42 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-15 12:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 12:20 ` Aleksa Sarai
2017-08-15 12:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 21:47 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-16 15:43 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-21 0:50 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-21 9:46 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-22 17:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 16:20 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 17:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 18:04 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 23:13 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 3/4] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:44 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 18:32 ` [v5 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-14 22:52 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-15 14:13 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-15 20:56 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-16 14:43 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-08-17 12:16 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-21 0:41 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-14 22:00 ` [v5 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function David Rientjes
2017-08-22 17:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-08-23 12:30 ` Roman Gushchin
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=20170816144344.GA29131@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--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=mhocko@kernel.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 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).