Message-ID: <aBFaNcaeYwzoJ13j@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 23:01:09 +0000
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
	Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 00/12] mm: BPF OOM

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 03:44:14PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 8:36 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset adds an ability to customize the out of memory
> > handling using bpf.
> >
> > It focuses on two parts:
> > 1) OOM handling policy,
> > 2) PSI-based OOM invocation.
> >
> > The idea to use bpf for customizing the OOM handling is not new, but
> > unlike the previous proposal [1], which augmented the existing task
> > ranking-based policy, this one tries to be as generic as possible and
> > leverage the full power of the modern bpf.
> >
> > It provides a generic hook which is called before the existing OOM
> > killer code and allows implementing any policy, e.g.  picking a victim
> > task or memory cgroup or potentially even releasing memory in other
> > ways, e.g. deleting tmpfs files (the last one might require some
> > additional but relatively simple changes).
> >
> > The past attempt to implement memory-cgroup aware policy [2] showed
> > that there are multiple opinions on what the best policy is.  As it's
> > highly workload-dependent and specific to a concrete way of organizing
> > workloads, the structure of the cgroup tree etc, a customizable
> > bpf-based implementation is preferable over a in-kernel implementation
> > with a dozen on sysctls.
> >
> > The second part is related to the fundamental question on when to
> > declare the OOM event. It's a trade-off between the risk of
> > unnecessary OOM kills and associated work losses and the risk of
> > infinite trashing and effective soft lockups.  In the last few years
> > several PSI-based userspace solutions were developed (e.g. OOMd [3] or
> > systemd-OOMd [4]). The common idea was to use userspace daemons to
> > implement custom OOM logic as well as rely on PSI monitoring to avoid
> > stalls. In this scenario the userspace daemon was supposed to handle
> > the majority of OOMs, while the in-kernel OOM killer worked as the
> > last resort measure to guarantee that the system would never deadlock
> > on the memory. But this approach creates additional infrastructure
> > churn: userspace OOM daemon is a separate entity which needs to be
> > deployed, updated, monitored. A completely different pipeline needs to
> > be built to monitor both types of OOM events and collect associated
> > logs. A userspace daemon is more restricted in terms on what data is
> > available to it. Implementing a daemon which can work reliably under a
> > heavy memory pressure in the system is also tricky.
> 
> I didn't read the whole patchset yet but want to mention couple
> features that we should not forget:
> - memory reaping. Maybe you already call oom_reap_task_mm() after BPF
> oom-handler kills a process or maybe BPF handler is expected to
> implement it?
> - kill reporting to userspace. I think BPF handler would be expected
> to implement it?

The patchset implements the bpf_oom_kill_process() helper, which kills
the desired process the same way as the kernel oom killer: with the help
of the oom reaper, dumping corresponding stats into dmesg and bumping
corresponding memcg- and system-level stats.

For additional reporting generic bpf<->userspace interaction mechanims
can be used, e.g. ringbuffer.

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists