From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: [v8 0/4] cgroup-aware OOM killer Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:56:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20170913215607.GA19259@castle> References: <20170911131742.16482-1-guro@fb.com> <20170913122914.5gdksbmkolum7ita@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fb.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=facebook; bh=l0tJla9PsmXJ23sPQOS+E2P5bAAo21wsTmaLqMyXisg=; b=dAyMp6kp8T/qSqHnvug+v+GbnX+SUdSEGzXWZyA/SAW7uaYtbV8B6F/ASTpSTfNqoLC5 mgIMclg0O4ledL4EudYtQRbNGahRBAMPZOSKM3LZWJU7I7O1L+AzrpPNqHN5aHD4B13H HcoFyfwzeKspk/ndHd7S2FnUHYFM+2BMJaQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fb.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-fb-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=l0tJla9PsmXJ23sPQOS+E2P5bAAo21wsTmaLqMyXisg=; b=b5035xWC+hwbddl8vPkHT1s5s0juQWVl23d70wJ6k2vvKvbViiMA10TNCIGXYcbKZr2URlp1xiWTLwO6wl/HWolSusgD+q0GL1GqiNPznsWkJGLYXbn4MTwLt/7LO9/Zi5QkllDGbTbm/argD76IGftlol53Q7Yu6Wpz1TAxvmU= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170913122914.5gdksbmkolum7ita@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vladimir Davydov , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:29:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 11-09-17 13:44:39, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware. > > > > > > v8: > > > - Do not kill tasks with OOM_SCORE_ADJ -1000 > > > - Make the whole thing opt-in with cgroup mount option control > > > - Drop oom_priority for further discussions > > > > Nack, we specifically require oom_priority for this to function correctly, > > otherwise we cannot prefer to kill from low priority leaf memcgs as > > required. > > While I understand that your usecase might require priorities I do not > think this part missing is a reason to nack the cgroup based selection > and kill-all parts. This can be done on top. The only important part > right now is the current selection semantic - only leaf memcgs vs. size > of the hierarchy). I agree. > I strongly believe that comparing only leaf memcgs > is more straightforward and it doesn't lead to unexpected results as > mentioned before (kill a small memcg which is a part of the larger > sub-hierarchy). One of two main goals of this patchset is to introduce cgroup-level fairness: bigger cgroups should be affected more than smaller, despite the size of tasks inside. I believe the same principle should be used for cgroups. Also, the opposite will make oom_semantics more weird: it will mean kill all tasks, but also treat memcg as a leaf cgroup. > > I didn't get to read the new version of this series yet and hope to get > to it soon. 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: email@kvack.org