Message-ID: <ZMKoAfGRgkl4rmtj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:23:13 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Cc:     hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
        robin.lu@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] mm: Select victim memcg using BPF_OOM_POLICY

On Thu 27-07-23 20:12:01, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2023/7/27 16:15, Michal Hocko 写道:
> > On Thu 27-07-23 15:36:27, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
> > > This patchset tries to add a new bpf prog type and use it to select
> > > a victim memcg when global OOM is invoked. The mainly motivation is
> > > the need to customizable OOM victim selection functionality so that
> > > we can protect more important app from OOM killer.
> > 
> > This is rather modest to give an idea how the whole thing is supposed to
> > work. I have looked through patches very quickly but there is no overall
> > design described anywhere either.
> > 
> > Please could you give us a high level design description and reasoning
> > why certain decisions have been made? e.g. why is this limited to the
> > global oom sitation, why is the BPF program forced to operate on memcgs
> > as entities etc...
> > Also it would be very helpful to call out limitations of the BPF
> > program, if there are any.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your advice.
> 
> The global/memcg OOM victim selection uses process as the base search
> granularity. However, we can see a need for cgroup level protection and
> there's been some discussion[1]. It seems reasonable to consider using memcg
> as a search granularity in victim selection algorithm.

Yes, it can be reasonable for some policies but making it central to the
design is very limiting.

> Besides, it seems pretty well fit for offloading policy decisions to a BPF
> program, since BPF is scalable and flexible. That's why the new BPF
> program operate on memcgs as entities.

I do not follow your line of argumentation here. The same could be
argued for processes or beans.

> The idea is to let user choose which leaf in the memcg tree should be
> selected as the victim. At the first layer, if we choose A, then it protects
> the memcg under the B, C, and D subtrees.
> 
>         root
>      /   ｜ \  \
>     A    B  C  D
>    /\
>   E F
> 
> 
> Using the BPF prog, we are allowed to compare the OOM priority between
> two siblings so that we can choose the best victim in each layer.

How is the priority defined and communicated to the userspace.

> For example:
> 
> run_prog(B, C) -> choose B
> run_prog(B, D) -> choose D
> run_prog(A, D) -> choose A
> 
> Once we select A as the victim in the first layer, the victim in next layer
> would be selected among A's children. Finally, we select a leaf memcg as
> victim.

This sounds like a very specific oom policy and that is fine. But the
interface shouldn't be bound to any concepts like priorities let alone
be bound to memcg based selection. Ideally the BPF program should get
the oom_control as an input and either get a hook to kill process or if
that is not possible then return an entity to kill (either process or
set of processes).

> In our scenarios, the impact caused by global OOM's is much more common, so
> we only considered global in this patchset. But it seems that the idea can
> also be applied to memcg OOM.

The global and memcg OOMs shouldn't have a different interface. If a
specific BPF program wants to implement a different policy for global
vs. memcg OOM then be it but this should be a decision of the said
program not an inherent limitation of the interface.

> 
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZIgodGWoC%2FR07eak@dhcp22.suse.cz/
> 
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Chuyi Zhou

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists