From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: clear page protection when memcg oom group happens
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:31:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191125123123.GL31714@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALOAHbCdE+xhVG4JNPf2t=s7VAfeb4F5bO2A+BCcwwcipkFXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon 25-11-19 20:17:15, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:54 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 25-11-19 19:37:59, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:08 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon 25-11-19 05:14:53, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > > We set memory.oom.group to make all processes in this memcg are killed by
> > > > > OOM killer to free more pages. In this case, it doesn't make sense to
> > > > > protect the pages with memroy.{min, low} again if they are set.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see why? What does group OOM killing has anything to do with
> > > > the reclaim protection? What is the actual problem you are trying to
> > > > solve?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The cgroup is treated as a indivisible workload when cgroup.oom.group
> > > is set and OOM killer is trying to kill a prcess in this cgroup.
> >
> > Yes this is true.
> >
> > > We set cgroup.oom.group is to guarantee the workload integrity, now
> > > that processes ara all killed, why keeps the page cache here?
> >
> > Because an administrator has configured the reclaim protection in a
> > certain way and hopefully had a good reason to do that. We are not going
> > to override that configure just because there is on OOM killer invoked
> > and killed tasks in that memcg. The workload might get restarted and it
> > would run under a different constrains all of the sudden which is not
> > expected.
> >
> > In short kernel should never silently change the configuration made by
> > an admistrator.
>
> Understood.
>
> So what about bellow changes ? We don't override the admin setting,
> but we reclaim the page caches from it if this memcg is oom killed.
> Something like,
>
> mem_cgroup_protected
> {
> ...
> + if (!cgroup_is_populated(memcg->css.cgroup) &&
> mem_cgroup_under_oom_group_kill(memcg))
> + return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
> +
> usage = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory);
> if (!usage)
> return MEMCG_PROT_NONE;
> }
I assume that mem_cgroup_under_oom_group_kill is essentially
memcg->under_oom && memcg->oom_group
But that doesn't really help much because all the reclaim attempts have
been already attempted and failed. I do not remember exact details about
under_oom but I have a recollection that it wouldn't really work for
cgroup v2 because the oom_control is not in place and so the state would
be set for only very short time period.
Again, what is a problem that you are trying to fix?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-25 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-25 10:14 [PATCH] mm, memcg: clear page protection when memcg oom group happens Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 11:08 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-25 11:37 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 11:54 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-25 12:17 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 12:31 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-11-25 12:37 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 12:45 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-25 14:11 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 14:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-25 14:42 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-11-25 14:45 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-26 3:52 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-26 7:31 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-26 9:35 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-26 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-26 10:02 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-26 10:22 ` Michal Hocko
2019-11-26 10:56 ` Yafang Shao
2019-11-25 14:44 ` Yafang Shao
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=20191125123123.GL31714@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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).