Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:25:29 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: don't raise MEMCG_OOM event due to failed
 high-order allocation

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:35:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 11-09-18 08:27:30, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 02:11:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 10-09-18 14:56:22, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > The memcg OOM killer is never invoked due to a failed high-order
> > > > allocation, however the MEMCG_OOM event can be easily raised.
> > > > 
> > > > Under some memory pressure it can happen easily because of a
> > > > concurrent allocation. Let's look at try_charge(). Even if we were
> > > > able to reclaim enough memory, this check can fail due to a race
> > > > with another allocation:
> > > > 
> > > >     if (mem_cgroup_margin(mem_over_limit) >= nr_pages)
> > > >         goto retry;
> > > > 
> > > > For regular pages the following condition will save us from triggering
> > > > the OOM:
> > > > 
> > > >    if (nr_reclaimed && nr_pages <= (1 << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> > > >        goto retry;
> > > > 
> > > > But for high-order allocation this condition will intentionally fail.
> > > > The reason behind is that we'll likely fall to regular pages anyway,
> > > > so it's ok and even preferred to return ENOMEM.
> > > > 
> > > > In this case the idea of raising the MEMCG_OOM event looks dubious.
> > > 
> > > Why is this a problem though? IIRC this event was deliberately placed
> > > outside of the oom path because we wanted to count allocation failures
> > > and this is also documented that way
> > > 
> > >           oom
> > >                 The number of time the cgroup's memory usage was
> > >                 reached the limit and allocation was about to fail.
> > > 
> > >                 Depending on context result could be invocation of OOM
> > >                 killer and retrying allocation or failing a
> > > 
> > > One could argue that we do not apply the same logic to GFP_NOWAIT
> > > requests but in general I would like to see a good reason to change
> > > the behavior and if it is really the right thing to do then we need to
> > > update the documentation as well.
> > 
> > Right, the current behavior matches the documentation, because the description
> > of the event is broad enough. My point is that the current behavior is not
> > useful in my corner case.
> > 
> > Let me explain my case in details: I've got a report about sporadic memcg oom
> > kills on some hosts with plenty of pagecache and low memory pressure.
> > You'll probably agree, that raising OOM signal in this case looks strange.
> 
> I am not sure I follow. So you see both OOM_KILL and OOM events and the
> user misinterprets OOM ones?

No, I see sporadic OOMs without OOM_KILLs in cgroups with plenty of pagecache
and low memory pressure. It's not a pre-OOM condition at all.

> 
> My understanding was that OOM event should tell admin that the limit
> should be increased in order to allow more charges. Without OOM_KILL
> events it means that those failed charges have some sort of fallback
> so it is not critical condition for the workload yet. Something to watch
> for though in case of perf. degradation or potential misbehavior.

Right, something like "there is a shortage of memory which will likely
lead to OOM soon". It's not my case.

> 
> Whether this is how the event is used, I dunno. Anyway, if you want to
> just move the event and make it closer to OOM_KILL then I strongly
> suspect the event is losing its relevance.

I agree here (about losing relevance), but don't think it's a reason
to generate misleading events.

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists