From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, 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: [v6 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:22:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170830112240.GA4751@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170825081402.GG25498@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:14:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 24-08-17 15:58:01, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:13:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 24-08-17 14:58:42, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Both ways are not ideal, and sum of the processes is not ideal too.
> > > > Especially, if you take oom_score_adj into account. Will you respect it?
> > >
> > > Yes, and I do not see any reason why we shouldn't.
> >
> > It makes things even more complicated.
> > Right now task's oom_score can be in (~ -total_memory, ~ +2*total_memory) range,
> > and it you're starting summing it, it can be multiplied by number of tasks...
> > Weird.
>
> oom_score_adj is just a normalized bias so if tasks inside oom will use
> it the whole memcg will get accumulated bias from all such tasks so it
> is not completely off. I agree that the more tasks use the bias the more
> biased the whole memcg will be. This might or might not be a problem.
> As you are trying to reimplement the existing oom killer implementation
> I do not think we cannot simply ignore API which people are used to.
>
> If this was a configurable oom policy then I could see how ignoring
> oom_score_adj is acceptable because it would be an explicit opt-in.
>
> > It also will be different in case of system and memcg-wide OOM.
>
> Why, we do honor oom_score_adj for the memcg OOM now and in fact the
> kernel memcg OOM killer shouldn't be very much different from the global
> one except for the tasks scope.
>
> > > > I've started actually with such approach, but then found it weird.
> > > >
> > > > > Besides that you have
> > > > > to check each task for over-killing anyway. So I do not see any
> > > > > performance merits here.
> > > >
> > > > It's an implementation detail, and we can hopefully get rid of it at some point.
> > >
> > > Well, we might do some estimations and ignore oom scopes but I that
> > > sounds really complicated and error prone. Unless we have anything like
> > > that then I would start from tasks and build up the necessary to make a
> > > decision at the higher level.
> >
> > Seriously speaking, do you have an example, when summing per-process
> > oom_score will work better?
>
> The primary reason I am pushing for this is to have the common iterator
> code path (which we have since Vladimir has unified memcg and global oom
> paths) and only parametrize the value calculation and victim selection.
>
> > Especially, if we're talking about customizing oom_score calculation,
> > it makes no sence to me. How you will sum process timestamps?
>
> Well, I meant you could sum oom_badness for your particular
> implementation. If we need some other policy then this wouldn't work and
> that's why I've said that I would like to preserve the current common
> code and only parametrize value calculation and victim selection...
I've spent some time to implement such a version.
It really became shorter and more existing code were reused,
howewer I've met a couple of serious issues:
1) Simple summing of per-task oom_score doesn't make sense.
First, we calculate oom_score per-task, while should sum per-process values,
or, better, per-mm struct. We can take only threa-group leader's score
into account, but it's also not 100% accurate.
And, again, we have a question what to do with per-task oom_score_adj,
if we don't task the task's oom_score into account.
Using memcg stats still looks to me as a more accurate and consistent
way of estimating memcg memory footprint.
2) If we're treating tasks from not-kill-all cgroups as separate oom entities,
and compare them with memcgs with kill-all flag, we definitely need
per-task oom_priority to provide a clear way to compare entities.
Otherwise we need per-memcg size-based oom_score_adj, which is not
the best idea, as we agreed earlier.
Thanks!
Roman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-30 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-23 16:51 [v6 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 16:51 ` [v6 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 16:51 ` [v6 2/4] mm, oom: " Roman Gushchin
2017-08-23 23:19 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-25 10:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 11:47 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 12:28 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 12:58 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 13:58 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 14:13 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 14:58 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-25 8:14 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-25 10:39 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-25 10:58 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-30 11:22 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-08-30 20:56 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-31 13:34 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-31 20:01 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-23 16:52 ` [v6 3/4] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 12:10 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 12:51 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 13:48 ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-24 14:11 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-08-28 20:54 ` David Rientjes
2017-08-23 16:52 ` [v6 4/4] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-08-24 11:15 ` [v6 1/4] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Michal Hocko
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=20170830112240.GA4751@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).