Date:	Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:02:20 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: user defined OOM policies

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > We have basically ended up with 3 options AFAIR:
> > 	1) allow memcg approach (memcg.oom_control) on the root level
> >            for both OOM notification and blocking OOM killer and handle
> >            the situation from the userspace same as we can for other
> > 	   memcgs.
> 
> This looks like a straightforward approach as the similar thing is done
> on the local (memcg) level. There are several problems though.
> Running userspace from within OOM context is terribly hard to do
> right.

Not sure it's hard if you have per-memcg memory reserves which I've 
brought up in the past with true and complete kmem accounting.  Even if 
you don't allocate slab, it guarantees that there will be at least a 
little excess memory available so that the userspace oom handler isn't oom 
itself.

This involves treating processes waiting on memory.oom_control to be 
treated as a special class so that they are allowed to allocate an 
additional pre-configured amount of memory.  For non-root memcgs, this 
would simply be a dummy usage that would be charged to the memcg when the 
oom notification is registered and actually accessible only by the oom 
handler itself while memcg->under_oom.  For root memcgs, this would simply 
be a PF_MEMALLOC type behavior that dips into per-zone memory reserves.

> This is true even in the memcg case and we strongly discurage
> users from doing that. The global case has nothing like outside of OOM
> context though. So any hang would blocking the whole machine.

Why would there be a hang if the userspace oom handlers aren't actually 
oom themselves as described above?

I'd suggest against the other two suggestions because hierarchical 
per-memcg userspace oom handlers are very powerful and can be useful 
without actually killing anything at all, and parent oom handlers can 
signal child oom handlers to free memory in oom conditions (in other 
words, defer a parent oom condition to a child's oom handler upon 
notification).  I was planning on writing a liboom library that would lay 
the foundation for how this was supposed to work and some generic 
functions that make use of the per-memcg memory reserves.

So my plan for the complete solution was:

 - allow userspace notification from the root memcg on system oom 
   conditions,

 - implement a memory.oom_delay_millisecs timeout so that the kernel 
   eventually intervenes if userspace fails to respond, including for
   system oom conditions, for whatever reason which would be set to 0
   if no userspace oom handler is registered for the notification, and

 - implement per-memcg reserves as described above so that userspace oom 
   handlers have access to memory even in oom conditions as an upfront
   charge and have the ability to free memory as necessary.

We already have the ability to do the actual kill from userspace, both the 
system oom killer and the memcg oom killer grants access to memory 
reserves for any process needing to allocate memory if it has a pending 
SIGKILL which we can send from userspace.
--
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