On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:38:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 23-05-17 09:25:44, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:07:47AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 22-05-17 18:01:16, Roman Gushchin wrote: > [...] > > > > How to react on an OOM - is definitely a policy, which depends > > > > on the workload. Nothing is changing here from how it's working now, > > > > except now kernel will choose a victim cgroup, and kill the victim cgroup > > > > rather than a process. > > > > > > There is a _big_ difference. The current implementation just tries > > > to recover from the OOM situation without carying much about the > > > consequences on the workload. This is the last resort and a services for > > > the _system_ to get back to sane state. You are trying to make it more > > > clever and workload aware and that is inevitable going to depend on the > > > specific workload. I really do think we cannot simply hardcode any > > > policy into the kernel for this purpose and that is why I would like to > > > see a discussion about how to do that in a more extensible way. This > > > might be harder to implement now but it I believe it will turn out > > > better longerm. > > > > And that's where I still maintain that this isn't really a policy > > change. Because what this code does ISN'T more clever, and the OOM > > killer STILL IS a last-resort thing. > > The thing I wanted to point out is that what and how much to kill > definitely depends on the usecase. We currently kill all tasks which > share the mm struct because that is the smallest unit that can unpin > user memory. And that makes a lot of sense to me as a general default. > I would call any attempt to guess tasks belonging to the same > workload/job as a "more clever". Yeah, I agree it needs to be configurable. But a memory domain is not a random guess. It's a core concept of the VM at this point. The fact that the OOM killer cannot handle it is pretty weird and goes way beyond "I wish we could have some smarter heuristics to choose from." > > We don't need any elaborate > > just-in-time evaluation of what each entity is worth. We just want to > > kill the biggest job, not the biggest MM. Just like you wouldn't want > > just the biggest VMA unmapped and freed, since it leaves your process > > incoherent, killing one process leaves a job incoherent. > > > > I understand that making it fully configurable is a tempting thought, > > because you'd offload all responsibility to userspace. > > It is not only tempting it is also the only place which can define > a more advanced OOM semantic sanely IMHO. Why do you think that? Everything the user would want to dynamically program in the kernel, say with bpf, they could do in userspace and then update the scores for each group and task periodically. The only limitation is that you have to recalculate and update the scoring tree every once in a while, whereas a bpf program could evaluate things just-in-time. But for that to matter in practice, OOM kills would have to be a fairly hot path. > > > > > And both kinds of workloads (services/applications and individual > > > > > processes run by users) can co-exist on the same host - consider the > > > > > default systemd setup, for instance. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO it would be better to give users a choice regarding what they > > > > > really want for a particular cgroup in case of OOM - killing the whole > > > > > cgroup or one of its descendants. For example, we could introduce a > > > > > per-cgroup flag that would tell the kernel whether the cgroup can > > > > > tolerate killing a descendant or not. If it can, the kernel will pick > > > > > the fattest sub-cgroup or process and check it. If it cannot, it will > > > > > kill the whole cgroup and all its processes and sub-cgroups. > > > > > > > > The last thing we want to do, is to compare processes with cgroups. > > > > I agree, that we can have some option to disable the cgroup-aware OOM at all, > > > > mostly for backward-compatibility. But I don't think it should be a > > > > per-cgroup configuration option, which we will support forever. > > > > > > I can clearly see a demand for "this is definitely more important > > > container than others so do not kill" usecases. I can also see demand > > > for "do not kill this container running for X days". And more are likely > > > to pop out. > > > > That can all be done with scoring. > > Maybe. But that requires somebody to tweak the scoring which can be hard > from trivial. Why is sorting and picking in userspace harder than sorting and picking in the kernel? > > This was 10 years ago, and nobody has missed anything critical enough > > to implement something beyond scoring. So I don't see why we'd need to > > do it for cgroups all of a sudden. > > > > They're nothing special, they just group together things we have been > > OOM killing for ages. So why shouldn't we use the same config model? > > > > It seems to me, what we need for this patch is 1) a way to toggle > > whether the processes and subgroups of a group are interdependent or > > independent and 2) configurable OOM scoring per cgroup analogous to > > what we have per process already. If a group is marked interdependent > > we stop descending into it and evaluate it as one entity. Otherwise, > > we go look for victims in its subgroups and individual processes. > > This would be an absolute minimum, yes. > > But I am still not convinced we should make this somehow "hardcoded" in > the core oom killer handler. Why cannot we allow a callback for modules > and implement all these non-default OOM strategies in modules? We have > oom_notify_list already but that doesn't get the full oom context which > could be fixable but I suspect this is not the greatest interface at > all. We do not really need multiple implementations of the OOM handling > at the same time and a simple callback should be sufficient > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index 04c9143a8625..926a36625322 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -995,6 +995,13 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > } > > /* > + * Try a registered oom handler to run and fallback to the default > + * implementation if it cannot handle the current oom context > + */ > + if (oom_handler && oom_handler(oc)) > + return true; I think this would take us back to the dark days where memcg entry points where big opaque branches in the generic VM code, which then implemented their own thing, redundant locking, redundant LRU lists, which was all very hard to maintain. > + /* > * If current has a pending SIGKILL or is exiting, then automatically > * select it. The goal is to allow it to allocate so that it may > * quickly exit and free its memory. > > Please note that I haven't explored how much of the infrastructure > needed for the OOM decision making is available to modules. But we can > export a lot of what we currently have in oom_kill.c. I admit it might > turn out that this is simply not feasible but I would like this to be at > least explored before we go and implement yet another hardcoded way to > handle (see how I didn't use policy ;)) OOM situation. ;) My doubt here is mainly that we'll see many (or any) real-life cases materialize that cannot be handled with cgroups and scoring. These are powerful building blocks on which userspace can implement all kinds of policy and sorting algorithms. So this seems like a lot of churn and complicated code to handle one extension. An extension that implements basic functionality. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
