On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:24:41PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:20:31PM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 01:03:44PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > + css_task_iter_start(&memcg->css, 0, &it);
> > > > + while ((task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If there are no tasks, or all tasks have oom_score_adj set
> > > > + * to OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN and oom_kill_all_tasks is not set,
> > > > + * don't select this memory cgroup.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!elegible &&
> > > > + (memcg->oom_kill_all_tasks ||
> > > > + task->signal->oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN))
> > > > + elegible = 1;
> > >
> > > This is a little awkward to read. How about something like this:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * When killing individual tasks, we respect OOM score adjustments:
> > > * at least one task in the group needs to be killable for the group
> > > * to be oomable.
> > > *
> > > * Also check that previous OOM kills have finished, and abort if
> > > * there are any pending OOM victims.
> > > */
> > > oomable = memcg->oom_kill_all_tasks;
> > > while ((task = css_task_iter_next(&it))) {
> > > if (!oomable && task->signal_oom_score_adj != OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN)
> > > oomable = 1;
> > >
> > > > + if (tsk_is_oom_victim(task) &&
> > > > + !test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &task->signal->oom_mm->flags)) {
> > > > + elegible = -1;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + css_task_iter_end(&it);
> >
> > We ignore oom_score_adj if oom_kill_all_tasks is set, it's
> > not reflected in your version. Anyway, I've moved the comments block
> > outside and rephrased it to make more clear.
>
> Yes it is...? We only respect the score if !oomable, which is set to
> oom_kill_all_tasks.
Sorry, haven't noticed this.
> > > > static int memory_events_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > {
> > > > struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(seq_css(m));
> > > > @@ -5310,6 +5512,12 @@ static struct cftype memory_files[] = {
> > > > .write = memory_max_write,
> > > > },
> > > > {
> > > > + .name = "oom_kill_all_tasks",
> > > > + .flags = CFTYPE_NOT_ON_ROOT,
> > > > + .seq_show = memory_oom_kill_all_tasks_show,
> > > > + .write = memory_oom_kill_all_tasks_write,
> > > > + },
> > >
> > > This name is quite a mouthful and reminiscent of the awkward v1
> > > interface names. It doesn't really go well with the v2 names.
> > >
> > > How about memory.oom_group?
> >
> > I'd prefer to have something more obvious. I've renamed
> > memory.oom_kill_all_tasks to memory.oom_kill_all, which was earlier suggested
> > by Vladimir. Are you ok with it?
>
> No, we should be striving for short and sweet mnemonics that express a
> concept (oom applies to group, not member tasks) instead of underscore
> sentences that describe an implementation (upon oom, kill all tasks in
> the group).
Why do you call it implementation, it's definitely an user's intention
"if a cgroup is under OOM, all belonging processes should be killed".
How it can be implemented differently?
>
> It's better to have newbies consult the documentation once than making
> everybody deal with long and cumbersome names for the rest of time.
>
> Like 'ls' being better than 'read_and_print_directory_contents'.
I don't think it's a good argument here: realistically, nobody will type
the knob's name often. Your option is shorter only by 3 characters :)
Anyway, I'm ok with memory.oom_group too, if everybody else prefer it.
Michal, David?
What's your opinion?
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
