Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 07-09-17 11:18:18, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote > > > To address these issues, cgroup-aware OOM killer is introduced. > > You are missing a major issue here. Processes may have allocation > constraints to memory nodes, special DMA zones etc etc. OOM

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-07 Thread Christopher Lameter
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote > To address these issues, cgroup-aware OOM killer is introduced. You are missing a major issue here. Processes may have allocation constraints to memory nodes, special DMA zones etc etc. OOM conditions on such resource constricted allocations need to be

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 06-09-17 14:41:42, Roman Gushchin wrote: [...] > Although, I don't think the whole thing is useful without any way > to adjust the memcg selection, so we can't postpone if for too long. > Anyway, if you think it's a way to go forward, let's do it. I am not really sure we are in a rush

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Roman Gushchin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 03:22:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 06-09-17 13:57:50, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 06-09-17 13:57:50, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Hmm. The changelog says "By default, it will

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Roman Gushchin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Hmm. The changelog says "By default, it will look for the biggest leaf > > > cgroup, and kill the largest

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Roman Gushchin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:34:13AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > @@ -810,6 +810,9 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct > > > > *victim) > > > >

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Hmm. The changelog says "By default, it will look for the biggest leaf > > cgroup, and kill the largest task inside." But you are accumulating > > oom_score up the hierarchy

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 05-09-17 21:23:57, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > @@ -810,6 +810,9 @@ static void __oom_kill_process(struct task_struct > > > *victim) > > > struct mm_struct *mm; > > > bool can_oom_reap = true; > > > > > > + if

Re: [v7 2/5] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer

2017-09-05 Thread Roman Gushchin
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:57:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 04-09-17 15:21:05, Roman Gushchin wrote: > [...] > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > index a69d23082abf..97813c56163b 100644 > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -2649,6 +2649,213 @@