Date:	Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:20:43 +0900
From:	Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...allels.com>,
	LKML-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML-cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] memory cgroup: my thoughts on memsw

(2014/09/05 17:28), Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Hi Kamezawa,
>
> Thanks for reading this :-)
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 07:03:57AM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2014/09/04 23:30), Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>>   - memory.limit - container can't use memory above this
>>>   - memory.memsw.limit - container can't use swappable memory above this
>>
>> If one hits anon+swap limit, it just means OOM. Hitting limit means
>> process's death.
>
> Basically yes. Hitting the memory.limit will result in swap out + cache
> reclaim no matter if it's an anon charge or a page cache one. Hitting
> the swappable memory limit (anon+swap) can only occur on anon charge and
> if it happens we have no choice rather than invoking OOM.
>
> Frankly, I don't see anything wrong in such a behavior. Why is it worse
> than the current behavior where we also kill processes if a cgroup
> reaches memsw.limit and we can't reclaim page caches?
>

IIUC, it's the same behavior with the system without cgroup.

> I admit I may be missing something. So I'd appreciate if you could
> provide me with a use case where we want *only* the current behavior and
> my proposal is a no-go.
>

Basically, I don't like OOM Kill. Anyone don't like it, I think.

In recent container use, application may be build as "stateless" and
kill-and-respawn may not be problematic, but I think killing "a" process
by oom-kill is too naive.

If your proposal is triggering notification to user space at hitting
anon+swap limit, it may be useful.
...Some container-cluster management software can handle it.
For example, container may be restarted.

Memcg has threshold notifier and vmpressure notifier.
I think you can enhance it.


>> Is it useful ?
>
> I think so, at least, if we want to use soft limits. The point is we
> will have to kill a process if it eats too much anon memory *anyway*
> when it comes to global memory pressure, but before finishing it we'll
> be torturing the culprit as well as *innocent* processes by issuing
> massive reclaim, as I tried to point out in the example above. IMO, this
> is no good.
>

My point is that "killing a process" tend not to be able to fix the situation.
For example, fork-bomb by "make -j" cannot be handled by it.

So, I don't want to think about enhancing OOM-Kill. Please think of better
way to survive. With the help of countainer-management-softwares, I think
we can have several choices.

Restart contantainer (killall) may be the best if container app is stateless.
Or container-management can provide some failover.

> Besides, I believe such a distinction between swappable memory and
> caches would look more natural to users. Everyone got used to it
> actually. For example, when an admin or user or any userspace utility
> looks at the output of free(1), it primarily pays attention to free
> memory "-/+ buffers/caches", because almost all memory is usually full
> with file caches. And they know that caches easy come, easy go. IMO, for
> them it'd be more useful to limit this to avoid nasty surprises in the
> future, and only set some hints for page cache reclaim.
>
> The only exception is strict sand-boxing, but AFAIU we can sand-box apps
>perfectly well with this either, because we would still have a strict
> memory limit and a limit on maximal swap usage.
>
> Please sorry if the idea looks to you totally stupid (may be it is!),
> but let's just try to consider every possibility we have in mind.
>

The 1st reason we added memsw.limit was for avoiding that the whole swap
is used up by a cgroup where memory-leak of forkbomb running and not for
some intellegent controls.

 From your opinion, I feel what you want is avoiding charging against page-caches.
But thiking docker at el, page-cache is not shared between containers any more.
I think "including cache" makes sense.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists