From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
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: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:03:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1709071502430.143767@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709071122360.20082@nuc-kabylake>
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > I am not sure this is how things evolved actually. This is way before
> > my time so my git log interpretation might be imprecise. We do have
> > oom_badness heuristic since out_of_memory has been introduced and
> > oom_kill_allocating_task has been introduced much later because of large
> > boxes with zillions of tasks (SGI I suspect) which took too long to
> > select a victim so David has added this heuristic.
>
> Nope. The logic was required for tasks that run out of memory when the
> restriction on the allocation did not allow the use of all of memory.
> cpuset restrictions and memory policy restrictions where the prime
> considerations at the time.
>
> It has *nothing* to do with zillions of tasks. Its amusing that the SGI
> ghost is still haunting the discussion here. The company died a couple of
> years ago finally (ok somehow HP has an "SGI" brand now I believe). But
> there are multiple companies that have large NUMA configurations and they
> all have configurations where they want to restrict allocations of a
> process to subset of system memory. This is even more important now that
> we get new forms of memory (NVDIMM, PCI-E device memory etc). You need to
> figure out what to do with allocations that fail because the *allowed*
> memory pools are empty.
>
We already had CONSTRAINT_CPUSET at the time, this was requested by Paul
and acked by him in https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118306851418425.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-07 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-04 14:21 [v7 0/5] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-04 14:21 ` [v7 1/5] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-09-05 13:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-04 14:21 ` [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-05 14:57 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-05 20:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-06 8:31 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 12:57 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-06 13:22 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 13:41 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-06 14:10 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 8:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 12:33 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-07 16:18 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-11 8:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-04 14:21 ` [v7 3/5] mm, oom: introduce oom_priority for memory cgroups Roman Gushchin
2017-09-04 14:21 ` [v7 4/5] mm, oom, docs: describe the cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-04 14:21 ` [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-04 17:32 ` Shakeel Butt
2017-09-04 17:51 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-05 13:44 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-05 14:30 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-05 15:12 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-05 19:16 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-06 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 17:40 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-06 17:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-06 20:59 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-07 14:43 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-07 14:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-07 15:03 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-07 16:42 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-07 17:03 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-07 21:55 ` David Rientjes
2017-09-07 16:21 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-05 21:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-06 8:28 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-07 16:14 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-09-11 9:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-11 12:50 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-07 16:27 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-07 22:03 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2017-09-08 21:07 ` Christopher Lameter
2017-09-09 8:45 ` David Rientjes
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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1709071502430.143767@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--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=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).