From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935082AbcCPIoG (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:44:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:37650 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935035AbcCPIoA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:44:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:43:57 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: reclaim and OOM kill when shrinking memory.max below usage Message-ID: <20160316084357.GA21228@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1457643015-8828-2-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20160311081825.GC27701@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160311091931.GK1946@esperanza> <20160316051848.GA11006@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160316051848.GA11006@cmpxchg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 15-03-16 22:18:48, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:19:31PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:18:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 10-03-16 15:50:14, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > ... > > > > @@ -5037,9 +5040,36 @@ static ssize_t memory_max_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, > > > > if (err) > > > > return err; > > > > > > > > - err = mem_cgroup_resize_limit(memcg, max); > > > > - if (err) > > > > - return err; > > > > + xchg(&memcg->memory.limit, max); > > > > + > > > > + for (;;) { > > > > + unsigned long nr_pages = page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); > > > > + > > > > + if (nr_pages <= max) > > > > + break; > > > > + > > > > + if (signal_pending(current)) { > > > > > > Didn't you want fatal_signal_pending here? At least the changelog > > > suggests that. > > > > I suppose the user might want to interrupt the write by hitting CTRL-C. > > Yeah. This is the same thing we do for the current limit setting loop. Yes we do but then the operation is canceled without any change. Now re-reading the changelog I've realized I have misread the "we run out of OOM victims and there's only unreclaimable memory left, or the task writing to memory.max is killed." part and considered task writing... is OOM killed. > > Come to think of it, shouldn't we restore the old limit and return EBUSY > > if we failed to reclaim enough memory? > > I suspect it's very rare that it would fail. But even in that case > it's probably better to at least not allow new charges past what the > user requested, even if we can't push the level back far enough. I guess you are right. This guarantee is indeed useful. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs