Message-ID: <B66FDA24-50C6-444D-BD84-124E68A2AEEE@didiglobal.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 05:12:11 +0000
From:   程垲涛 Chengkaitao Cheng 
        <chengkaitao@...iglobal.com>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
CC:     "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
        "lizefan.x@...edance.com" <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        "shakeelb@...gle.com" <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "muchun.song@...ux.dev" <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        "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>,
        "pilgrimtao@...il.com" <pilgrimtao@...il.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>,
        "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>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] memcontrol: support cgroup level OOM protection

At 2023-05-18 04:42:12, "Yosry Ahmed" <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:01 AM 程垲涛 Chengkaitao Cheng
><chengkaitao@...iglobal.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 2023-05-17 16:09:50, "Yosry Ahmed" <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:01 AM 程垲涛 Chengkaitao Cheng
>> ><chengkaitao@...iglobal.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 2023-05-17 14:59:06, "Yosry Ahmed" <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>> >> >+David Rientjes
>> >> >
>> >> >On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:20 PM chengkaitao <chengkaitao@...iglobal.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> Thank you for providing a new application scenario. You have described a
>> >> new per-memcg approach, but a simple introduction cannot explain the
>> >> details of your approach clearly. If you could compare and analyze my
>> >> patches for possible defects, or if your new approach has advantages
>> >> that my patches do not have, I would greatly appreciate it.
>> >
>> >Sorry if I was not clear, I am not implying in any way that the
>> >approach I am describing is better than your patches. I am guilty of
>> >not conducting the proper analysis you are requesting.
>>
>> There is no perfect approach in the world, and I also seek your advice with
>> a learning attitude. You don't need to say sorry, I should say thank you.
>>
>> >I just saw the thread and thought it might be interesting to you or
>> >others to know the approach that we have been using for years in our
>> >production. I guess the target is the same, be able to tell the OOM
>> >killer which memcgs/processes are more important to protect. The
>> >fundamental difference is that instead of tuning this based on the
>> >memory usage of the memcg (your approach), we essentially give the OOM
>> >killer the ordering in which we want memcgs/processes to be OOM
>> >killed. This maps to jobs priorities essentially.
>>
>> Killing processes in order of memory usage cannot effectively protect
>> important processes. Killing processes in a user-defined priority order
>> will result in a large number of OOM events and still not being able to
>> release enough memory. I have been searching for a balance between
>> the two methods, so that their shortcomings are not too obvious.
>> The biggest advantage of memcg is its tree topology, and I also hope
>> to make good use of it.
>
>For us, killing processes in a user-defined priority order works well.
>
>It seems like to tune memory.oom.protect you use oom_kill_inherit to
>observe how many times this memcg has been killed due to a limit in an
>ancestor. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to specify the priority
>of protections among memcgs?
>
>For example, if you observe multiple memcgs being OOM killed due to
>hitting an ancestor limit, you will need to decide which of them to
>increase memory.oom.protect for more, based on their importance.
>Otherwise, if you increase all of them, then there is no point if all
>the memory is protected, right?

If all memory in memcg is protected, its meaning is similar to that of the
highest priority memcg in your approach, which is ultimately killed or
never killed.

>In this case, wouldn't it be easier to just tell the OOM killer the
>relative priority among the memcgs?
>
>>
>> >If this approach works for you (or any other audience), that's great,
>> >I can share more details and perhaps we can reach something that we
>> >can both use :)
>>
>> If you have a good idea, please share more details or show some code.
>> I would greatly appreciate it
>
>The code we have needs to be rebased onto a different version and
>cleaned up before it can be shared, but essentially it is as
>described.
>
>(a) All processes and memcgs start with a default score.
>(b) Userspace can specify scores for memcgs and processes. A higher
>score means higher priority (aka less score gets killed first).
>(c) The OOM killer essentially looks for the memcg with the lowest
>scores to kill, then among this memcg, it looks for the process with
>the lowest score. Ties are broken based on usage, so essentially if
>all processes/memcgs have the default score, we fallback to the
>current OOM behavior.

If memory oversold is severe, all processes of the lowest priority
memcg may be killed before selecting other memcg processes.
If there are 1000 processes with almost zero memory usage in
the lowest priority memcg, 1000 invalid kill events may occur.
To avoid this situation, even for the lowest priority memcg,
I will leave him a very small oom.protect quota.

If faced with two memcgs with the same total memory usage and
priority, memcg A has more processes but less memory usage per
single process, and memcg B has fewer processes but more
memory usage per single process, then when OOM occurs, the
processes in memcg B may continue to be killed until all processes
in memcg B are killed, which is unfair to memcg B because memcg A
also occupies a large amount of memory.

Dose your approach have these issues? Killing processes in a
user-defined priority is indeed easier and can work well in most cases,
but I have been trying to solve the cases that it cannot cover.

--
Thanks for your comment!
chengkaitao

Powered by blists - more mailing lists