All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: oom_kill: revert 3% system memory bonus for privileged tasks
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 02:07:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401151614480.15665@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:18:47PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > With a63d83f427fb ("oom: badness heuristic rewrite"), the OOM killer
> > tries to avoid killing privileged tasks by subtracting 3% of overall
> > memory (system or cgroup) from their per-task consumption.  But as a
> > result, all root tasks that consume less than 3% of overall memory are
> > considered equal, and so it only takes 33+ privileged tasks pushing
> > the system out of memory for the OOM killer to do something stupid and
> > kill sshd or dhclient.  For example, on a 32G machine it can't tell
> > the difference between the 1M agetty and the 10G fork bomb member.
> > 
> > The changelog describes this 3% boost as the equivalent to the global
> > overcommit limit being 3% higher for privileged tasks, but this is not
> > the same as discounting 3% of overall memory from _every privileged
> > task individually_ during OOM selection.
> > 
> > Revert back to the old priority boost of pretending root tasks are
> > only a quarter of their actual size.
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately, I think this could potentially be too much of a bonus.  On 
> your same 32GB machine, if a root process is using 18GB and a user process 
> is using 14GB, the user process ends up getting selected while the current 
> discount of 3% still selects the root process.
> 
> I do like the idea of scaling this bonus depending on points, however.  I 
> think it would be better if we could scale the discount but also limit it 
> to some sane value.

I just reverted to the /= 4 because we had that for a long time and it
seemed to work.  I don't really mind either way as long as we get rid
of that -3%.  Do you have a suggestion?

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: oom_kill: revert 3% system memory bonus for privileged tasks
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 02:07:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401151614480.15665@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:18:47PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > With a63d83f427fb ("oom: badness heuristic rewrite"), the OOM killer
> > tries to avoid killing privileged tasks by subtracting 3% of overall
> > memory (system or cgroup) from their per-task consumption.  But as a
> > result, all root tasks that consume less than 3% of overall memory are
> > considered equal, and so it only takes 33+ privileged tasks pushing
> > the system out of memory for the OOM killer to do something stupid and
> > kill sshd or dhclient.  For example, on a 32G machine it can't tell
> > the difference between the 1M agetty and the 10G fork bomb member.
> > 
> > The changelog describes this 3% boost as the equivalent to the global
> > overcommit limit being 3% higher for privileged tasks, but this is not
> > the same as discounting 3% of overall memory from _every privileged
> > task individually_ during OOM selection.
> > 
> > Revert back to the old priority boost of pretending root tasks are
> > only a quarter of their actual size.
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately, I think this could potentially be too much of a bonus.  On 
> your same 32GB machine, if a root process is using 18GB and a user process 
> is using 14GB, the user process ends up getting selected while the current 
> discount of 3% still selects the root process.
> 
> I do like the idea of scaling this bonus depending on points, however.  I 
> think it would be better if we could scale the discount but also limit it 
> to some sane value.

I just reverted to the /= 4 because we had that for a long time and it
seemed to work.  I don't really mind either way as long as we get rid
of that -3%.  Do you have a suggestion?

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-16  7:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-15 23:43 [patch] mm: oom_kill: revert 3% system memory bonus for privileged tasks Johannes Weiner
2014-01-15 23:43 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-16  0:18 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16  0:18   ` David Rientjes
2014-01-16  7:07   ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-01-16  7:07     ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-22  4:53     ` David Rientjes
2014-01-22  4:53       ` David Rientjes
2014-01-24  4:05       ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-24  4:05         ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-26  3:48         ` [patch] mm, oom: base root bonus on current usage David Rientjes
2014-01-26  3:48           ` David Rientjes
2014-01-26 15:27           ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-26 15:27             ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-29 20:28           ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-29 20:28             ` Andrew Morton
2014-01-30  0:35             ` David Rientjes
2014-01-30  0:35               ` David Rientjes
2014-01-30  2:12             ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-30  2:12               ` Johannes Weiner

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=20140116070709.GM6963@cmpxchg.org \
    --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=rientjes@google.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.