From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: oom: ignore oom warnings from memory.max
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 12:40:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200505164031.GC58018@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod48mu1w=fjpD=GXqCMdNq_8rExQ177_EP+Lx+TvR6fw+w@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:35:45AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:27 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 12:23:51PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:06 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > I really hate to repeat myself but this is no different from a regular
> > > > oom situation.
> > >
> > > Conceptually yes there is no difference but there is no *divine
> > > restriction* to not make a difference if there is a real world
> > > use-case which would benefit from it.
> >
> > I would wholeheartedly agree with this in general.
> >
> > However, we're talking about the very semantics that set memory.max
> > apart from memory.high: triggering OOM kills to enforce the limit.
> >
> > > > when the kernel cannot act and mentions that along with the
> > > > oom report so that whoever consumes that information can debug or act on
> > > > that fact.
> > > >
> > > > Silencing the oom report is simply removing a potentially useful
> > > > aid to debug further a potential problem.
> > >
> > > *Potentially* useful for debugging versus actually beneficial for
> > > "sweep before tear down" use-case. Also I am not saying to make "no
> > > dumps for memory.max when no eligible tasks" a set in stone rule. We
> > > can always reevaluate when such information will actually be useful.
> > >
> > > Johannes/Andrew, what's your opinion?
> >
> > I still think that if you want to sweep without triggering OOMs,
> > memory.high has the matching semantics.
> >
> > As you pointed out, it doesn't work well for foreign charges, but that
> > is more of a limitation in the implementation than in the semantics:
> >
> > /*
> > * If the hierarchy is above the normal consumption range, schedule
> > * reclaim on returning to userland. We can perform reclaim here
> > * if __GFP_RECLAIM but let's always punt for simplicity and so that
> > * GFP_KERNEL can consistently be used during reclaim. @memcg is
> > * not recorded as it most likely matches current's and won't
> > * change in the meantime. As high limit is checked again before
> > * reclaim, the cost of mismatch is negligible.
> > */
> >
> > Wouldn't it be more useful to fix that instead? It shouldn't be much
> > of a code change to do sync reclaim in try_charge().
>
> Sync reclaim would really simplify the remote charging case. Though
> should sync reclaim only be done for remote charging or for all?
I would do it for all __GFP_RECLAIM callers, no need to special case
remote charging unnecessarily IMO.
We can do both the reclaim as well as the penalty throttling
synchronously, i.e. all of mem_cgroup_handle_over_high(). And then
punt to the userspace resume when we either didn't reclaim or are
still over the threshold after reclaim.
Btw we should probably kick off high_work rather than set userspace
resume on foreign charges, right? Otherwise we may not reclaim at all
when we push a group over its limit from outside (and in a
!__GFP_RECLAIM context).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-05 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-30 18:27 [PATCH] memcg: oom: ignore oom warnings from memory.max Shakeel Butt
2020-04-30 19:06 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-04-30 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-04-30 20:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2020-04-30 19:31 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-04-30 19:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-04-30 20:20 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-04 6:57 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 13:54 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-01 1:39 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-01 2:04 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-01 2:12 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-04 7:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 7:26 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-04 7:35 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 7:40 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-04 8:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 6:56 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 13:54 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-04 14:11 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 14:53 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-04 15:00 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 15:35 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-04 15:39 ` Yafang Shao
2020-05-04 16:06 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-04 19:23 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-05 7:13 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-05 15:03 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-05 16:57 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-05 15:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2020-05-05 15:35 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-05 15:49 ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-05 16:40 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2020-05-04 14:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-04 14:57 ` Shakeel Butt
2020-05-04 15:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=20200505164031.GC58018@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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).