[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fdef5cf2-553a-4f4f-aec9-129391834e9b@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:46:58 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: update documentation about invoking oom
killer
On 03/11/2019 02.55, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
>> Since commit 29ef680ae7c2 ("memcg, oom: move out_of_memory back to the
>> charge path") memcg invokes oom killer not only for user page-faults.
>> This means 0-order allocation will either succeed or task get killed.
>>
>> Fixes: 8e675f7af507 ("mm/oom_kill: count global and memory cgroup oom kills")
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>> ---
>> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
>> index 5361ebec3361..eb47815e137b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
>> @@ -1219,8 +1219,13 @@ PAGE_SIZE multiple when read back.
>>
>> Failed allocation in its turn could be returned into
>> userspace as -ENOMEM or silently ignored in cases like
>> - disk readahead. For now OOM in memory cgroup kills
>> - tasks iff shortage has happened inside page fault.
>> + disk readahead.
>> +
>> + Before 4.19 OOM in memory cgroup killed tasks iff
>> + shortage has happened inside page fault, random
>> + syscall may fail with ENOMEM or EFAULT. Since 4.19
>> + failed memory cgroup allocation invokes oom killer and
>> + keeps retrying until it succeeds.
>>
>> This event is not raised if the OOM killer is not
>> considered as an option, e.g. for failed high-order
>
> The previous text is obviously incorrect for today's kernels, but I'm
> curious if we should be conflating the documentation here by describing
> the pre-4.19 behavior. OOM killing no longer happens only on page fault
> so maybe better to document the exact behavior today and not attempt to
> describe differences with previous versions?
>
Previous behaviour was here for ages and 4.19 is not so old.
According too https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html pre-4.19 will
be maintained for couple years at least. Let's keep this tombstone.
I've seen a lot of strange side effects of old behaviour.
Most obscure was a hang inside libc fork() when clone(CLONE_CHILD_SETTID)
silently fails to set child pid =)
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150206162301.18031.32251.stgit@buzz/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists