Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHJMSd16j3ANrtJGVfLieHdeO_Epq=U9OKty3TV362ckQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 19:38:03 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, 
	Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Sourav Panda <souravpanda@...gle.com>, Pasha Tatashin <tatashin@...gle.com>, 
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] Try to add memory allocation info for cgroup oom kill

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 7:06 AM Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 12:18:00PM -0700, Yueyang Pan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 11:35:19AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:11:56AM -0700, Yueyang Pan wrote:
> > > > > Right now in the oom_kill_process if the oom is because of the cgroup
> > > > > limit, we won't get memory allocation infomation. In some cases, we
> > > > > can have a large cgroup workload running which dominates the machine.
> > > > > The reason using cgroup is to leave some resource for system. When this
> > > > > cgroup is killed, we would also like to have some memory allocation
> > > > > information for the whole server as well. This is reason behind this
> > > > > mini change. Is it an acceptable thing to do? Will it be too much
> > > > > information for people? I am happy with any suggestions!
> > > >
> > > > For a single patch, it is better to have all the context in the patch
> > > > and there is no need for cover letter.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your suggestion Shakeel! I will change this in the next version.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What exact information you want on the memcg oom that will be helpful
> > > > for the users in general? You mentioned memory allocation information,
> > > > can you please elaborate a bit more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As in my reply to Suren, I was thinking the system-wide memory usage info
> > > provided by show_free_pages and memory allocation profiling info can help
> > > us debug cgoom by comparing them with historical data. What is your take on
> > > this?
> > >
> >
> > I am not really sure about show_free_areas(). More specifically how the
> > historical data diff will be useful for a memcg oom. If you have a
> > concrete example, please give one. For memory allocation profiling, is
>
> Sorry for my late reply. I have been trying hard to think about a use case.
> One specific case I can think about is when there is no workload stacking,
> when one job is running solely on the machine. For example, memory allocation
> profiling can tell the memory usage of the network driver, which can make
> cg allocates memory harder and eventually leads to cgoom. Without this
> information, it would be hard to reason about what is happening in the kernel
> given increased oom number.
>
> show_free_areas() will give a summary of different types of memory which
> can possibably lead to increased cgoom in my previous case. Then one looks
> deeper via the memory allocation profiling as an entrypoint to debug.
>
> Does this make sense to you?

I think if we had per-memcg memory profiling that would make sense.
Counters would reflect only allocations made by the processes from
that memcg and you could easily identify the allocation that caused
memcg to oom. But dumping system-wide profiling information at
memcg-oom time I think would not help you with this task. It will be
polluted with allocations from other memcgs, so likely won't help much
(unless there is some obvious leak or you know that a specific
allocation is done only by a process from your memcg and no other
process).

>
> > it possible to filter for the given memcg? Do we save memcg information
> > in the memory allocation profiling?
>
> Thanks
> Pan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists