public inbox for linux-mm@kvack.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@fb.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2 2/3] mm, memcg: replace cgroup aware oom killer mount option with tunable
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:39:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180126143950.719912507bd993d92188877f@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1801261415090.15318@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:20:24 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > > Now that each mem cgroup on the system has a memory.oom_policy tunable to
> > > specify oom kill selection behavior, remove the needless "groupoom" mount
> > > option that requires (1) the entire system to be forced, perhaps
> > > unnecessarily, perhaps unexpectedly, into a single oom policy that
> > > differs from the traditional per process selection, and (2) a remount to
> > > change.
> > > 
> > > Instead of enabling the cgroup aware oom killer with the "groupoom" mount
> > > option, set the mem cgroup subtree's memory.oom_policy to "cgroup".
> > 
> > Can we retain the groupoom mount option and use its setting to set the
> > initial value of every memory.oom_policy?  That way the mount option
> > remains somewhat useful and we're back-compatible?
> > 
> 
> -ECONFUSED.  We want to have a mount option that has the sole purpose of 
> doing echo cgroup > /mnt/cgroup/memory.oom_policy?

Approximately.  Let me put it another way: can we modify your patchset
so that the mount option remains, and continues to have a sufficiently
same effect?  For backward compatibility.

> This, and fixes to fairly compare the root mem cgroup with leaf mem 
> cgroups, are essential before the feature is merged otherwise it yields 
> wildly unpredictable (and unexpected, since its interaction with 
> oom_score_adj isn't documented) results as I already demonstrated where 
> cgroups with 1GB of usage are killed instead of 6GB workers outside of 
> that subtree.

OK, so Roman's new feature is incomplete: it satisfies some use cases
but not others.  And we kinda have a plan to address the other use
cases in the future.

There's nothing wrong with that!  As long as we don't break existing
setups while evolving the feature.  How do we do that?


--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-26 22:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-17  2:14 [patch -mm 0/4] mm, memcg: introduce oom policies David Rientjes
2018-01-17  2:15 ` [patch -mm 1/4] mm, memcg: introduce per-memcg oom policy tunable David Rientjes
2018-01-17  2:15 ` [patch -mm 2/4] mm, memcg: replace cgroup aware oom killer mount option with tunable David Rientjes
2018-01-17  2:15 ` [patch -mm 3/4] mm, memcg: replace memory.oom_group with policy tunable David Rientjes
2018-01-17 15:41   ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-17 16:00     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-17 22:18       ` David Rientjes
2018-01-23 15:13         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-17 22:14     ` David Rientjes
2018-01-19 20:53       ` David Rientjes
2018-01-20 12:32         ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-22 22:34           ` David Rientjes
2018-01-23 15:53             ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-23 22:22               ` David Rientjes
2018-01-24  8:20                 ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-24 21:44                   ` David Rientjes
2018-01-24 22:08                     ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-24 22:18                       ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-25  8:11                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-25  8:05                     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-25 23:27                       ` David Rientjes
2018-01-26 10:07                         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-26 22:33                           ` David Rientjes
2018-01-17  2:15 ` [patch -mm 4/4] mm, memcg: add hierarchical usage oom policy David Rientjes
2018-01-17 11:46 ` [patch -mm 0/4] mm, memcg: introduce oom policies Roman Gushchin
2018-01-17 22:31   ` David Rientjes
2018-01-25 23:53 ` [patch -mm v2 0/3] " David Rientjes
2018-01-25 23:53   ` [patch -mm v2 1/3] mm, memcg: introduce per-memcg oom policy tunable David Rientjes
2018-01-26 17:15     ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-29 22:38       ` David Rientjes
2018-01-30  8:50         ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-30 22:38           ` David Rientjes
2018-01-31  9:47             ` Michal Hocko
2018-02-01 10:11               ` David Rientjes
2018-01-25 23:53   ` [patch -mm v2 2/3] mm, memcg: replace cgroup aware oom killer mount option with tunable David Rientjes
2018-01-26  0:00     ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-26 22:20       ` David Rientjes
2018-01-26 22:39         ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2018-01-26 22:52           ` David Rientjes
2018-01-27  0:17             ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-29 10:46               ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-29 19:11                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-30  8:54                   ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-30 11:58                     ` Roman Gushchin
2018-01-30 12:08                       ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-30 12:13                         ` Roman Gushchin
2018-01-30 12:20                           ` Michal Hocko
2018-01-30 15:15                             ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-30 17:30                             ` Johannes Weiner
2018-01-30 19:39                             ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-29 22:16               ` David Rientjes
2018-01-25 23:53   ` [patch -mm v2 3/3] mm, memcg: add hierarchical usage oom policy David Rientjes

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=20180126143950.719912507bd993d92188877f@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox