From: Viktor Rosendahl <viktor.rosendahl@nokia.com>
To: ext Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable OOM when moving processes between cgroups?
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:34:56 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E60BF60.7090003@nokia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110831175422.GB21571@redhat.com>
On 08/31/2011 08:54 PM, ext Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:32:21PM +0300, Viktor Rosendahl wrote:
>>
>> In my testing (2.6.32 kernel with some backported cgroups patches), it improves
>> the case when there isn't room for the task in the target cgroup.
>
> Tasks are moved directly on behalf of a request from userspace. We
> would much prefer denying that single request than invoking the
> oom-killer on the whole group.
>
I can agree that in general this is a better policy, because in the
general case it's not known if the userspace entity that requested the
move prefers to cancel the move or kill something in the target group.
In my specific system it's known that we always want to kill something
in the group, so probably this need to be a local patch.
Are there any known performance or reliability problems if OOM is
enabled in that code patch?
> Quite a lot changed in the trycharge-reclaim-retry path since 2009.
> Nowadays, charging is retried as long as reclaim is making any
> progress at all, so I don't see that it would give up moving a task
> too lightly, even without the extra OOM looping.
>
The problem isn't really that the task moving is given up too easily; it
seems more like it is trying too hard. The system is becoming very slow
and unresponsive when moving the task. Our system is meant to be fairly
interactive and responsive, that's why we would like to enable the OOM
killer.
> Is there any chance you could retry with a more recent kernel?
Probably not with our production environment because it's an ARM based
embedded system. If I tried to update the kernel, I would most likely
end up with a ton of broken drivers.
Making some synthetic test case on a PC would of course be possible but
I am not sure if it would tell that much.
best regards,
Viktor
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-02 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-31 17:32 [PATCH] Enable OOM when moving processes between cgroups? Viktor Rosendahl
2011-08-31 17:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-09-01 0:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-09-01 0:13 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2011-09-02 11:34 ` Viktor Rosendahl [this message]
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=4E60BF60.7090003@nokia.com \
--to=viktor.rosendahl@nokia.com \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).