From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4BAC43142 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7837020C0B for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:00:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7837020C0B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726938AbeHBJul (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2018 05:50:41 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58826 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726307AbeHBJul (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2018 05:50:41 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1A7AD26; Thu, 2 Aug 2018 08:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:00:41 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] introduce memory.oom.group Message-ID: <20180802080041.GB10808@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180730180100.25079-1-guro@fb.com> <20180731235135.GA23436@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 01-08-18 14:51:25, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > What's the plan with the cgroup aware oom killer? It has been sitting in > > > the -mm tree for ages with no clear path to being merged. > > > > It's because your nack, isn't it? > > Everybody else seem to be fine with it. > > > > If they are fine with it, I'm not sure they have tested it :) Killing > entire cgroups needlessly for mempolicy oom kills that will not free > memory on target nodes is the first regression they may notice. I do not remember you would be mentioning this previously. Anyway the older implementation has considered the nodemask in memcg_oom_badness. You are right that a cpuset allocation could needlessly select a memcg with small or no memory from the target nodemask which is something I could have noticed during the review. If only I didn't have to spend all my energy to go through repetitive arguments of yours. Anyway this would be quite trivial to resolve in the same function by checking node_isset(node, current->mems_allowed). Thanks for your productive feedback again. Skipping the rest which is yet again repeating same arguments and it doesn't add anything new to the table. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs