From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, surenb@google.com, hca@linux.ibm.com,
gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com,
keescook@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
namhyung@kernel.org, david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com,
adobriyan@gmail.com, yang.yang29@zte.com.cn, brauner@kernel.org,
stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com,
haolee.swjtu@gmail.com, xu.xin16@zte.com.cn,
Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, ohoono.kwon@samsung.com,
peterx@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, shy828301@gmail.com,
alex.sierra@amd.com, xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com,
willy@infradead.org, ccross@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
sujiaxun@uniontech.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
vasily.averin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, vvghjk1234@gmail.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, luto@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm, oom: Introduce per numa node oom for CONSTRAINT_{MEMORY_POLICY,CPUSET}
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:37:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ysf629IWfT5b58oD@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be9303de-3800-c26f-4530-9a29fe044956@bytedance.com>
On Fri 08-07-22 17:25:31, Gang Li wrote:
> Oh apologize. I just realized what you mean.
>
> I should try a "cpuset cgroup oom killer" selecting victim from a
> specific cpuset cgroup.
yes, that was the idea. Many workloads which really do care about
particioning the NUMA system tend to use cpusets. In those cases you
have reasonably defined boundaries and the current OOM killer
imeplementation is not really aware of that. The oom selection process
could be enhanced/fixed to select victims from those cpusets similar to
how memcg oom killer victim selection is done.
There is no additional accounting required for this approach because the
workload is partitioned on the cgroup level already. Maybe this is not
really the best fit for all workloads but it should be reasonably simple
to implement without intrusive or runtime visible changes.
I am not saying per-numa accounting is wrong or a bad idea. I would just
like to see a stronger justification for that and also some arguments
why a simpler approach via cpusets is not viable.
Does this make sense to you?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-08 9:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-08 8:21 [PATCH v2 0/5] mm, oom: Introduce per numa node oom for CONSTRAINT_{MEMORY_POLICY,CPUSET} Gang Li
2022-07-08 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: add a new parameter `node` to `get/add/inc/dec_mm_counter` Gang Li
2022-07-08 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: add numa_count field for rss_stat Gang Li
2022-07-08 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: add numa fields for tracepoint rss_stat Gang Li
2022-07-08 17:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-07-08 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: enable per numa node rss_stat count Gang Li
2022-07-08 8:21 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] mm, oom: enable per numa node oom for CONSTRAINT_{MEMORY_POLICY,CPUSET} Gang Li
2022-07-08 8:54 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] mm, oom: Introduce " Michal Hocko
2022-07-08 9:25 ` Gang Li
2022-07-08 9:37 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2022-07-12 11:12 ` Abel Wu
2022-07-12 13:35 ` Michal Hocko
2022-07-12 15:00 ` Abel Wu
2022-07-18 12:11 ` Michal Hocko
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=Ysf629IWfT5b58oD@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.sierra@amd.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ccross@google.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=haolee.swjtu@gmail.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=ohoono.kwon@samsung.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com \
--cc=sujiaxun@uniontech.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vasily.averin@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=vvghjk1234@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=xianting.tian@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=xu.xin16@zte.com.cn \
--cc=yang.yang29@zte.com.cn \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).