From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0F66B0005 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:10:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b14so144579875wmb.1 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:10:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org (gum.cmpxchg.org. [85.214.110.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t207si5826068wmt.84.2016.01.26.10.09.59 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:10:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:09:13 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] proposals for topics Message-ID: <20160126180913.GA2428@cmpxchg.org> References: <20160125133357.GC23939@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160125184559.GE29291@cmpxchg.org> <56A7A7E8.3060801@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56A7A7E8.3060801@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Michal Hocko , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:07:52PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 01/25/2016 07:45 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>>- One of the long lasting issue related to the OOM handling is when to > >>> actually declare OOM. There are workloads which might be trashing on > >>> few last remaining pagecache pages or on the swap which makes the > >>> system completely unusable for considerable amount of time yet the > >>> OOM killer is not invoked. Can we finally do something about that? > >I'm working on this, but it's not an easy situation to detect. > > > >We can't decide based on amount of page cache, as you could have very > >little of it and still be fine. Most of it could still be used-once. > > > >We can't decide based on number or rate of (re)faults, because this > >spikes during startup and workingset changes, or can be even sustained > >when working with a data set that you'd never expect to fit into > >memory in the first place, while still making acceptable progress. > > I would hope that workingset should help distinguish workloads thrashing due > to low memory and those that can't fit there no matter what? Or would it > require tracking lifetime of so many evicted pages that the memory overhead > of that would be infeasible? Yes, using the workingset code is exactly my plan. The only thing it requires on top is a time component. Then we can kick the OOM killer based on the share of time a workload (the system?) spends thrashing. -- 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