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 9A336C04EBD for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4182089E for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:17:12 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5B4182089E 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 S1727059AbeJPTHH (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2018 15:07:07 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36154 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726595AbeJPTHG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Oct 2018 15:07:06 -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 54FD3AEE4; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:17:07 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, guro@fb.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, Andrew Morton , Sergey Senozhatsky , Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg, oom: throttle dump_header for memcg ooms without eligible tasks Message-ID: <20181016111707.GS18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <6c0a57b3-bfd4-d832-b0bd-5dd3bcae460e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20181015133524.GM18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201810160055.w9G0t62E045154@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20181016092043.GP18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <59b9bd23-ff75-0488-fd96-68ee7f049d00@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59b9bd23-ff75-0488-fd96-68ee7f049d00@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> 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 Tue 16-10-18 20:05:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/16 18:20, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Anyway, I'm OK if we apply _BOTH_ your patch and my patch. Or I'm OK with simplified > >> one shown below (because you don't like per memcg limit). > > > > My patch is adding a rate-limit! I really fail to see why we need yet > > another one on top of it. This is just ridiculous. I can see reasons to > > tune that rate limit but adding 2 different mechanisms is just wrong. > > > > If your NAK to unify the ratelimit for dump_header for all paths > > still holds then I do not care too much to push it forward. But I find > > thiis way of the review feedback counter productive. > > > > Your patch is _NOT_ adding a rate-limit for > > "%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), nodemask=%*pbl, order=%d, oom_score_adj=%hd\n" > "Out of memory and no killable processes...\n" > > lines! And I've said I do not have objections to have an _incremental_ patch to move the ratelimit up with a clear cost/benefit evaluation. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs