From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Artem S. Tashkinov" <aros@gmx.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: Let's talk about the elephant in the room - the Linux kernel's inability to gracefully handle low memory pressure
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:27:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFmOzj-gU1NwoQFmS_pbDKKd2XN=CS1vUV4gKhYCJOUtw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806143608.GE11812@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:36 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue 06-08-19 10:27:28, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:36:48AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 8/6/19 3:08 AM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > >> @@ -1280,3 +1285,50 @@ static int __init psi_proc_init(void)
> > > >> return 0;
> > > >> }
> > > >> module_init(psi_proc_init);
> > > >> +
> > > >> +#define OOM_PRESSURE_LEVEL 80
> > > >> +#define OOM_PRESSURE_PERIOD (10 * NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > > >
> > > > 80% of the last 10 seconds spent in full stall would definitely be a
> > > > problem. If the system was already low on memory (which it probably
> > > > is, or we would not be reclaiming so hard and registering such a big
> > > > stall) then oom-killer would probably kill something before 8 seconds
> > > > are passed.
> > >
> > > If oom killer can act faster, than great! On small embedded systems you probably
> > > don't enable PSI anyway?
We use PSI triggers with 1 sec tracking window. PSI averages are less
useful on such systems because in 10 secs (which is the shortest PSI
averaging window) memory conditions can change drastically.
> > > > If my line of thinking is correct, then do we really
> > > > benefit from such additional protection mechanism? I might be wrong
> > > > here because my experience is limited to embedded systems with
> > > > relatively small amounts of memory.
> > >
> > > Well, Artem in his original mail describes a minutes long stall. Things are
> > > really different on a fast desktop/laptop with SSD. I have experienced this as
> > > well, ending up performing manual OOM by alt-sysrq-f (then I put more RAM than
> > > 8GB in the laptop). IMHO the default limit should be set so that the user
> > > doesn't do that manual OOM (or hard reboot) before the mechanism kicks in. 10
> > > seconds should be fine.
> >
> > That's exactly what I have experienced in the past, and this was also
> > the consistent story in the bug reports we have had.
> >
> > I suspect it requires a certain combination of RAM size, CPU speed,
> > and IO capacity: the OOM killer kicks in when reclaim fails, which
> > happens when all scanned LRU pages were locked and under IO. So IO
> > needs to be slow enough, or RAM small enough, that the CPU can scan
> > all LRU pages while they are temporarily unreclaimable (page lock).
> >
> > It may well be that on phones the RAM is small enough relative to CPU
> > size.
> >
> > But on desktops/servers, we frequently see that there is a wider
> > window of memory consumption in which reclaim efficiency doesn't drop
> > low enough for the OOM killer to kick in. In the time it takes the CPU
> > to scan through RAM, enough pages will have *just* finished reading
> > for reclaim to free them again and continue to make "progress".
> >
> > We do know that the OOM killer might not kick in for at least 20-25
> > minutes while the system is entirely unresponsive. People usually
> > don't wait this long before forcibly rebooting. In a managed fleet,
> > ssh heartbeat tests eventually fail and force a reboot.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
> > I'm not sure 10s is the perfect value here, but I do think the kernel
> > should try to get out of such a state, where interacting with the
> > system is impossible, within a reasonable amount of time.
> >
> > It could be a little too short for non-interactive number-crunching
> > systems...
>
> Would it be possible to have a module with tunning knobs as parameters
> and hook into the PSI infrastructure? People can play with the setting
> to their need, we wouldn't really have think about the user visible API
> for the tuning and this could be easily adopted as an opt-in mechanism
> without a risk of regressions.
PSI averages stalls over 10, 60 and 300 seconds, so implementing 3
corresponding thresholds would be easy. The patch Johannes posted can
be extended to support 3 thresholds instead of 1. I can take a stab at
it if Johannes is busy.
If we want more flexibility we could use PSI triggers with
configurable tracking window but that's more complex and probably not
worth it.
> I would really love to see a simple threshing watchdog like the one you
> have proposed earlier. It is self contained and easy to play with if the
> parameters are not hardcoded.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-06 16:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <d9802b6a-949b-b327-c4a6-3dbca485ec20@gmx.com>
2019-08-05 12:13 ` Let's talk about the elephant in the room - the Linux kernel's inability to gracefully handle low memory pressure Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-05 13:31 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 16:47 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-08-05 18:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 9:29 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-05 19:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 1:08 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-08-06 9:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-06 14:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-06 14:36 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 16:27 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
2019-08-06 22:01 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 7:59 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-07 20:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 21:01 ` Andrew Morton
2019-08-07 21:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-07 21:12 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-08 11:48 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 15:10 ` ndrw.xf
2019-08-08 16:32 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 17:57 ` ndrw.xf
2019-08-08 18:59 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 21:59 ` ndrw
2019-08-09 8:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 10:09 ` ndrw
2019-08-09 10:50 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 14:18 ` Pintu Agarwal
2019-08-10 12:34 ` ndrw
2019-08-12 8:24 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-10 21:07 ` ndrw
2021-07-24 17:32 ` Alexey Avramov
2021-07-25 2:11 ` Hillf Danton
2019-08-08 14:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-08 17:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-09 14:56 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-09 17:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-13 13:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-06 21:43 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2019-08-06 19:00 ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-05 9:05 Hillf Danton
2019-08-05 12:01 ` Artem S. Tashkinov
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='CAJuCfpFmOzj-gU1NwoQFmS_pbDKKd2XN=CS1vUV4gKhYCJOUtw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--cc=aros@gmx.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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).