On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Johannes Weiner wrote: > You don't have any control and no accounting of the stuff situated > inside the root cgroup, so it doesn't make sense to leave anything in > there while also using sophisticated containerization mechanisms like > this group oom setting. > > In fact, the laptop I'm writing this email on runs an unmodified > mainstream Linux distribution. The only thing in the root cgroup are > kernel threads. > > The decisions are good enough for the rare cases you forget something > in there and it explodes. > It's quite trivial to allow the root mem cgroup to be compared exactly the same as another cgroup. Please see https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151579459920305. > This assumes you even need one. Right now, the OOM killer picks the > biggest MM, so you can evade selection by forking your MM. This patch > allows picking the biggest cgroup, so you can evade by forking groups. > It's quite trivial to prevent any cgroup from evading the oom killer by either forking their mm or attaching all their processes to subcontainers. Please see https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151579459920305. > It's not a new vector, and clearly nobody cares. This has never been > brought up against the current design that I know of. > As cgroup v2 becomes more popular, people will organize their cgroup hierarchies for all controllers they need to use. We do this today, for example, by attaching some individual consumers to child mem cgroups purely for the rich statistics and vmscan stats that mem cgroup provides without any limitation on those cgroups. > Note, however, that there actually *is* a way to guard against it: in > cgroup2 there is a hierarchical limit you can configure for the number > of cgroups that are allowed to be created in the subtree. See > 1a926e0bbab8 ("cgroup: implement hierarchy limits"). > Not allowing the user to create subcontainers to track statistics to paper over an obvious and acknowledged shortcoming in the design of the cgroup aware oom killer seems like a pretty nasty shortcoming itself. > It could be useful, but we have no concensus on the desired > semantics. And it's not clear why we couldn't add it later as long as > the default settings of a new knob maintain the default behavior > (which would have to be preserved anyway, since we rely on it). > The active proposal is https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151579459920305, which describes an extendable interface and one that covers all the shortcomings of this patchset without polluting the mem cgroup filesystem. The default oom policy in that proposal would be "none", i.e. we do what we do today, based on process usage. You can configure that, without the mount option this patchset introduces for local or hierarchical cgroup targeting. > > > > I proposed a solution in > > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150956897302725, which was never > > > > responded to, for all of these issues. The idea is to do hierarchical > > > > accounting of mem cgroup hierarchies so that the hierarchy is traversed > > > > comparing total usage at each level to select target cgroups. Admins and > > > > users can use memory.oom_score_adj to influence that decisionmaking at > > > > each level. > > We did respond repeatedly: this doesn't work for a lot of setups. > We need to move this discussion to the active proposal at https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151579459920305, because it does address your setup, so it's not good use of anyones time to further discuss simply memory.oom_score_adj. Thanks. -- 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
