All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	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: [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:04:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004150452.GA23299@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree
> > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more
> > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value.
> > 
> > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're
> > inheriting it; or not inherit.
> 
> Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for
> oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same
> unless they explicitly state otherwise.

Not sure I understand why. Setting memory.oom_group on a child memcg
has absolutely no meaning until memory.max is also set. In case of OOM
scoped to the parent memcg or above, parent's value defines the behavior.

If a user decides to create a separate OOM domain (be setting the hard
memory limit), he/she can also make a decision on how OOM event should
be handled.

Thanks!

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	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: [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:04:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004150452.GA23299@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree
> > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more
> > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value.
> > 
> > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're
> > inheriting it; or not inherit.
> 
> Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for
> oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same
> unless they explicitly state otherwise.

Not sure I understand why. Setting memory.oom_group on a child memcg
has absolutely no meaning until memory.max is also set. In case of OOM
scoped to the parent memcg or above, parent's value defines the behavior.

If a user decides to create a separate OOM domain (be setting the hard
memory limit), he/she can also make a decision on how OOM event should
be handled.

Thanks!

--
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: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	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: [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:04:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171004150452.GA23299@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:22:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 03-10-17 15:08:41, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:36:23PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I guess we want to inherit the value on the memcg creation but I agree
> > > that enforcing parent setting is weird. I will think about it some more
> > > but I agree that it is saner to only enforce per memcg value.
> > 
> > I'm not against, but we should come up with a good explanation, why we're
> > inheriting it; or not inherit.
> 
> Inheriting sounds like a less surprising behavior. Once you opt in for
> oom_group you can expect that descendants are going to assume the same
> unless they explicitly state otherwise.

Not sure I understand why. Setting memory.oom_group on a child memcg
has absolutely no meaning until memory.max is also set. In case of OOM
scoped to the parent memcg or above, parent's value defines the behavior.

If a user decides to create a separate OOM domain (be setting the hard
memory limit), he/she can also make a decision on how OOM event should
be handled.

Thanks!

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-10-04 15:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-27 13:09 [v9 0/5] cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 1/5] mm, oom: refactor the oom_kill_process() function Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09   ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 2/5] mm: implement mem_cgroup_scan_tasks() for the root memory cgroup Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09   ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 10:49   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 10:49     ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:50     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 12:50       ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 3/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09   ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 11:48   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 11:48     ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:37     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 12:37       ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 12:37       ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 13:36       ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 13:36         ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:08         ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:08           ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:22           ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:22             ` Michal Hocko
     [not found]             ` <20171003142246.xactdt7xddqdhvtu-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2017-10-03 14:35               ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-03 14:35                 ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-03 14:35                 ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-04  9:29                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04  9:29                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:38             ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:38               ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:38               ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 14:43               ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 14:43                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-04 15:04             ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-10-04 15:04               ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-04 15:04               ` Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 4/5] mm, oom: add cgroup v2 mount option for " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09   ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 11:50   ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 11:50     ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 12:49     ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 12:49       ` Roman Gushchin
2017-10-03 13:39       ` Michal Hocko
2017-10-03 13:39         ` Michal Hocko
2017-09-27 13:09 ` [v9 5/5] mm, oom, docs: describe the " Roman Gushchin
2017-09-27 13:09   ` Roman Gushchin

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=20171004150452.GA23299@castle \
    --to=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --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=rientjes@google.com \
    --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 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.