From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
williams@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:36:17 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100528143617.GF11364@uudg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100528140623.GA11041@barrios-desktop>
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:06:23PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:53:05AM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
| > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:59:02PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
| > | As far as my observation, RT-function always have some syscall. because pure
| > | calculation doesn't need deterministic guarantee. But _if_ you are really
| > | using such priority design. I'm ok maximum NonRT priority instead maximum
| > | RT priority too.
| >
| > I confess I failed to distinguish memcg OOM and system OOM and used "in
| > case of OOM kill the selected task the faster you can" as the guideline.
| > If the exit code path is short that shouldn't be a problem.
| >
| > Maybe the right way to go would be giving the dying task the biggest
| > priority inside that memcg to be sure that it will be the next process from
| > that memcg to be scheduled. Would that be reasonable?
|
| Hmm. I can't understand your point.
| What do you mean failing distinguish memcg and system OOM?
|
| We already have been distinguish it by mem_cgroup_out_of_memory.
| (but we have to enable CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR).
| So task selected in select_bad_process is one out of memcg's tasks when
| memcg have a memory pressure.
The approach of giving the highest priority to the dying task makes sense
in a system wide OOM situation. I though that would also be good for the
memcg OOM case.
After Balbir Singh's comment, I understand that in a memcg OOM the dying
task should have a priority just above the priority of the main task of
that memcg, in order to avoid interfering in the rest of the system.
That is the point where I failed to distinguish between memcg and system OOM.
Should I pursue that new idea of looking for the right priority inside the
memcg or is it overkill? I really don't have a clear view of the impact of
a memcg OOM on system performance - don't know if it is better to solve the
issue sooner (highest RT priority) or leave it to be solved later (highest
prio on the memcg). I have the impression the general case points to the
simpler solution.
Luis
--
[ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Bass - Gospel - RT ]
[ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
williams@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:36:17 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100528143617.GF11364@uudg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100528140623.GA11041@barrios-desktop>
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:06:23PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 09:53:05AM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
| > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:59:02PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
| > | As far as my observation, RT-function always have some syscall. because pure
| > | calculation doesn't need deterministic guarantee. But _if_ you are really
| > | using such priority design. I'm ok maximum NonRT priority instead maximum
| > | RT priority too.
| >
| > I confess I failed to distinguish memcg OOM and system OOM and used "in
| > case of OOM kill the selected task the faster you can" as the guideline.
| > If the exit code path is short that shouldn't be a problem.
| >
| > Maybe the right way to go would be giving the dying task the biggest
| > priority inside that memcg to be sure that it will be the next process from
| > that memcg to be scheduled. Would that be reasonable?
|
| Hmm. I can't understand your point.
| What do you mean failing distinguish memcg and system OOM?
|
| We already have been distinguish it by mem_cgroup_out_of_memory.
| (but we have to enable CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR).
| So task selected in select_bad_process is one out of memcg's tasks when
| memcg have a memory pressure.
The approach of giving the highest priority to the dying task makes sense
in a system wide OOM situation. I though that would also be good for the
memcg OOM case.
After Balbir Singh's comment, I understand that in a memcg OOM the dying
task should have a priority just above the priority of the main task of
that memcg, in order to avoid interfering in the rest of the system.
That is the point where I failed to distinguish between memcg and system OOM.
Should I pursue that new idea of looking for the right priority inside the
memcg or is it overkill? I really don't have a clear view of the impact of
a memcg OOM on system performance - don't know if it is better to solve the
issue sooner (highest RT priority) or leave it to be solved later (highest
prio on the memcg). I have the impression the general case points to the
simpler solution.
Luis
--
[ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Bass - Gospel - RT ]
[ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ]
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-28 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-27 18:04 [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-27 18:04 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-27 18:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-27 18:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-28 2:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 2:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 3:51 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 3:51 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 4:33 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 4:33 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 4:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 4:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 5:30 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 5:30 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 5:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 5:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 5:50 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 5:50 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 5:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 5:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 7:52 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 7:52 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 12:53 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 12:53 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 14:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 14:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 14:20 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 14:20 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 15:03 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:03 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 14:36 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves [this message]
2010-05-28 14:36 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 15:12 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:12 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-28 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-28 15:35 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:35 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:28 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 15:28 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 15:45 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 15:45 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-28 16:48 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-28 16:48 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-29 3:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-29 3:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 2:15 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-31 2:15 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-31 5:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 5:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 6:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 6:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 7:05 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 7:05 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 7:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 7:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 9:30 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 9:30 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-30 15:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-30 15:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 0:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 0:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 5:01 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 5:01 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 5:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 5:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 5:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 5:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 5:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 5:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 6:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 6:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 6:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 6:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 10:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 10:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 13:52 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-31 13:52 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-05-31 23:50 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-31 23:50 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 17:35 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-01 17:35 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-01 20:49 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 20:49 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 14:20 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-02 14:20 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-02 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 21:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 23:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 23:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-03 0:52 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-03 0:52 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-03 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-03 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-03 20:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-03 20:32 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 8:19 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-01 8:19 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-01 18:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 18:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-05-28 6:27 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 6:27 ` Balbir Singh
2010-05-28 6:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-28 6:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-28 6:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 6:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-28 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-28 15:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20100528143617.GF11364@uudg.org \
--to=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.