linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com,
	Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
	Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:17:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190411201727.GB4743@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpERmBzCpRTj5W1929OOiVEjcdBoSAsYXiYKoq0gsgRyhg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu 11-04-19 12:56:32, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:19 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit
> > > > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies
> > > > on it.
> > >
> > > Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation
> > > throttling that we can fall back to stop memory depletion. However
> > > having a way to free up resources that are not needed by a dying
> > > process quickly would help to avoid throttling which hurts user
> > > experience.
> >
> > I am not opposing speeding up the exit time in general. That is a good
> > thing. Especially for a very large processes (e.g. a DB). But I do not
> > really think we want to expose an API to control this specific aspect.
> 
> Great! Thanks for confirming that the intent is not worthless.
> There were a number of ideas floating both internally and in the 2/2
> of this patchset. I would like to get some input on which
> implementation would be preferable. From your answer sounds like you
> think it should be a generic feature, should not require any new APIs
> or hints from the userspace and should be conducted for all kills
> unconditionally (irrespective of memory pressure, who is waiting for
> victim's death, etc.). Do I understand correctly that this would be
> the preferred solution?

Yes, I think the general tear down solution is much more preferable than
a questionable API. How that solution should look like is an open
question. I am not sure myself to be honest.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-11 20:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-11  1:43 [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11  1:43 ` [RFC 1/2] mm: oom: expose expedite_reclaim to use oom_reaper outside of oom_kill.c Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-25 21:12   ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-04-25 21:56     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11  1:43 ` [RFC 2/2] signal: extend pidfd_send_signal() to allow expedited process killing Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:30   ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 10:34     ` Christian Brauner
2019-04-11 15:18     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 15:23       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 16:25         ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 15:33   ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:05     ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 17:09     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 17:33       ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-11 17:36         ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:47           ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12  6:49             ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-12 14:15               ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:20                 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 21:03             ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-11 17:52           ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 21:45       ` Roman Gushchin
2019-04-11 21:59         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12  6:53     ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-12 14:10       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-12 14:14       ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-12 15:30         ` Daniel Colascione
2019-04-25 16:09         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 10:51 ` [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:18   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 18:12     ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 19:14       ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 20:11         ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 21:11           ` Joel Fernandes
2019-04-11 16:20   ` Sandeep Patil
2019-04-11 16:47   ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 18:19     ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 19:56       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2019-04-11 20:17         ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-04-11 17:19   ` Johannes Weiner
2019-04-11 11:51 ` [Lsf-pc] " Rik van Riel
2019-04-11 12:16   ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-11 16:54     ` Suren Baghdasaryan

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=20190411201727.GB4743@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=jrdr.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yuzhoujian@didichuxing.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).