On 01/26/2016 10:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 25-01-16 13:45:59, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:33:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose the following topics (mainly for the MM track
but some of them might be of interest for FS people as well)
- gfp flags for allocations requests seems to be quite complicated
and used arbitrarily by many subsystems. GFP_REPEAT is one such
example. Half of the current usage is for low order allocations
requests where it is basically ignored. Moreover the documentation
claims that such a request is _not_ retrying endlessly which is
true only for costly high order allocations. I think we should get
rid of most of the users of this flag (basically all low order ones)
and then come up with something like GFP_BEST_EFFORT which would work
for all orders consistently [1]
I think nobody would mind a patch that just cleans this stuff up. Do
you expect controversy there?
Well, I thought the same but the patches didn't get much traction.
The reason might be that people are too busy in general to look
into changes that are of no immediate benefit so I thought that
discussing such a higher level topic at LSF might make sense. I really
wish we rethink our current GFP flags battery and try to come up with
something that will be more consistent and ideally without the weight of
the history tweaks.
Agreed. LSF discussion could help both with the traction and to
brainstorm a better defined/named set of flags for today's __GFP_REPEAT,
__GFP_NORETRY etc. So far it was just me and Michal on the thread and we
share the same office...
- GFP_NOFS is another one which would be good to discuss. Its primary
use is to prevent from reclaim recursion back into FS. This makes
such an allocation context weaker and historically we haven't
triggered OOM killer and rather hopelessly retry the request and
rely on somebody else to make a progress for us. There are two issues
here.
First we shouldn't retry endlessly and rather fail the allocation and
allow the FS to handle the error. As per my experiments most FS cope
with that quite reasonably. Btrfs unfortunately handles many of those
failures by BUG_ON which is really unfortunate.
Are there any new datapoints on how to deal with failing allocations?
IIRC the conclusion last time was that some filesystems simply can't
support this without a reservation system - which I don't believe
anybody is working on. Does it make sense to rehash this when nothing
really changed since last time?
There have been patches posted during the year to fortify those places
which cannot cope with allocation failures for ext[34] and testing
has shown that ext* resp. xfs are quite ready to see NOFS allocation
failures.
Hmm from last year I remember Dave Chinner saying there really are some
places that can't handle failure, period? That's why all the discussions
about reservations, and I would be surprised if all such places were
gone today? Which of course doesn't mean that there couldn't be
different NOFS places that can handle failures, which however don't
happen in current implementation.
It is merely Btrfs which is in the biggest troubles now and
this is a work in progress AFAIK. I am perfectly OK to discuss some
details with interested FS people during BoF e.g.
- OOM killer has been discussed a lot throughout this year. We have
discussed this topic the last year at LSF and there has been quite some
progress since then. We have async memory tear down for the OOM victim
[2] which should help in many corner cases. We are still waiting
to make mmap_sem for write killable which would help in some other
classes of corner cases. Whatever we do, however, will not work in
100% cases. So the primary question is how far are we willing to go to
support different corner cases. Do we want to have a
panic_after_timeout global knob, allow multiple OOM victims after
a timeout?
Yes, that sounds like a good topic to cover. I'm honestly surprised
that there is so much resistence to trying to make the OOM killer
deterministic, and patches that try to fix that are resisted while the
thing can still lock up quietly.
I guess the problem is what different parties see as the deterministic
behavior. Timeout based solutions suggested so far were either too
convoluted IMHO, not deterministic or too simplistic to attract general
interest I guess.
Yep, a good topic.
It would be good to take a step back and consider our priorities
there, think about what the ultimate goal of the OOM killer is, and
then how to make it operate smoothly without compromising that goal -
not the other way round.
Agreed.
- sysrq+f to trigger the oom killer follows some heuristics used by the
OOM killer invoked by the system which means that it is unreliable
and it might skip to kill any task without any explanation why. The
semantic of the knob doesn't seem to clear and it has been even
suggested [3] to remove it altogether as an unuseful debugging aid. Is
this really a general consensus?
I think it's an okay debugging aid, but I worry about it coming up so
much in discussions about how the OOM killer should behave. We should
never *require* manual intervention to put a machine back into known
state after it ran out of memory.
My argument has been that this is more of an emergency break when the
system cannot cope with the current load (not only after OOM) than a
debugging aid but it seems that there is indeed not a clear consensus on
this topic so I think we should make it clear.
Right.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>