[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4eEiqwMMkHv9ELM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 17:27:54 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: 程垲涛 Chengkaitao Cheng
<chengkaitao@...iglobal.com>
Cc: Tao pilgrim <pilgrimtao@...il.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"lizefan.x@...edance.com" <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
"shakeelb@...gle.com" <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
"cgel.zte@...il.com" <cgel.zte@...il.com>,
"ran.xiaokai@....com.cn" <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"zhengqi.arch@...edance.com" <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
"chengzhihao1@...wei.com" <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>,
"haolee.swjtu@...il.com" <haolee.swjtu@...il.com>,
"yuzhao@...gle.com" <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
"vasily.averin@...ux.dev" <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"surenb@...gle.com" <surenb@...gle.com>,
"sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"mcgrof@...nel.org" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"sujiaxun@...ontech.com" <sujiaxun@...ontech.com>,
"feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: protect the memory in cgroup from being
oom killed
On Wed 30-11-22 15:46:19, 程垲涛 Chengkaitao Cheng wrote:
> On 2022-11-30 21:15:06, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > On Wed 30-11-22 15:01:58, chengkaitao wrote:
> > > From: chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@...il.com>
> > >
> > > We created a new interface <memory.oom.protect> for memory, If there is
> > > the OOM killer under parent memory cgroup, and the memory usage of a
> > > child cgroup is within its effective oom.protect boundary, the cgroup's
> > > tasks won't be OOM killed unless there is no unprotected tasks in other
> > > children cgroups. It draws on the logic of <memory.min/low> in the
> > > inheritance relationship.
> >
> > Could you be more specific about usecases?
This is a very important question to answer.
> > How do you tune oom.protect
> > wrt to other tunables? How does this interact with the oom_score_adj
> > tunining (e.g. a first hand oom victim with the score_adj 1000 sitting
> > in a oom protected memcg)?
>
> We prefer users to use score_adj and oom.protect independently. Score_adj is
> a parameter applicable to host, and oom.protect is a parameter applicable to cgroup.
> When the physical machine's memory size is particularly large, the score_adj
> granularity is also very large. However, oom.protect can achieve more fine-grained
> adjustment.
Let me clarify a bit. I am not trying to defend oom_score_adj. It has
it's well known limitations and it is is essentially unusable for many
situations other than - hide or auto-select potential oom victim.
> When the score_adj of the processes are the same, I list the following cases
> for explanation,
>
> root
> |
> cgroup A
> / \
> cgroup B cgroup C
> (task m,n) (task x,y)
>
> score_adj(all task) = 0;
> oom.protect(cgroup A) = 0;
> oom.protect(cgroup B) = 0;
> oom.protect(cgroup C) = 3G;
How can you enforce protection at C level without any protection at A
level? This would easily allow arbitrary cgroup to hide from the oom
killer and spill over to other cgroups.
> usage(task m) = 1G
> usage(task n) = 2G
> usage(task x) = 1G
> usage(task y) = 2G
>
> oom killer order of cgroup A: n > m > y > x
> oom killer order of host: y = n > x = m
>
> If cgroup A is a directory maintained by users, users can use oom.protect
> to protect relatively important tasks x and y.
>
> However, when score_adj and oom.protect are used at the same time, we
> will also consider the impact of both, as expressed in the following formula.
> but I have to admit that it is an unstable result.
> score = task_usage + score_adj * totalpage - eoom.protect * task_usage / local_memcg_usage
I hope I am not misreading but this has some rather unexpected
properties. First off, bigger memory consumers in a protected memcg are
protected more. Also I would expect the protection discount would
be capped by the actual usage otherwise excessive protection
configuration could skew the results considerably.
> > I haven't really read through the whole patch but this struck me odd.
>
> > > @@ -552,8 +552,19 @@ static int proc_oom_score(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > > unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages() + total_swap_pages;
> > > unsigned long points = 0;
> > > long badness;
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > >
> > > - badness = oom_badness(task, totalpages);
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
> > > + if (memcg && !css_tryget(&memcg->css))
> > > + memcg = NULL;
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +
> > > + update_parent_oom_protection(root_mem_cgroup, memcg);
> > > + css_put(&memcg->css);
> > > +#endif
> > > + badness = oom_badness(task, totalpages, MEMCG_OOM_PROTECT);
> >
> > the badness means different thing depending on which memcg hierarchy
> > subtree you look at. Scaling based on the global oom could get really
> > misleading.
>
> I also took it into consideration. I planned to change "/proc/pid/oom_score"
> to a writable node. When writing to different cgroup paths, different values
> will be output. The default output is root cgroup. Do you think this idea is
> feasible?
I do not follow. Care to elaborate?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists