[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200318095710.GG21362@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:57:10 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Ami Fischman <fischman@...gle.com>
Cc: Robert Kolchmeyer <rkolchmeyer@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: make a last minute check to prevent unnecessary
memcg oom kills
On Tue 17-03-20 12:00:45, Ami Fischman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:26 AM Robert Kolchmeyer
> <rkolchmeyer@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert, could you elaborate on the user-visible effects of this issue that
> > > caused it to initially get reported?
> >
> > Ami (now cc'ed) knows more, but here is my understanding.
>
> Robert's description of the mechanics we observed is accurate.
>
> We discovered this regression in the oom-killer's behavior when
> attempting to upgrade our system. The fraction of the system that
> went unhealthy due to this issue was approximately equal to the
> _sum_ of all other causes of unhealth, which are many and varied,
> but each of which contribute only a small amount of
> unhealth. This issue forced a rollback to the previous kernel
> where we ~never see this behavior, returning our unhealth levels
> to the previous background levels.
Could you be more specific on the good vs. bad kernel versions? Because
I do not remember any oom changes that would affect the
time-to-check-time-to-kill race. The timing might be slightly different
in each kernel version of course.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists