On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:52:59 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > -ECONFUSED. We want to have a mount option that has the sole purpose of > > > doing echo cgroup > /mnt/cgroup/memory.oom_policy? > > > > Approximately. Let me put it another way: can we modify your patchset > > so that the mount option remains, and continues to have a sufficiently > > same effect? For backward compatibility. > > > > The mount option would exist solely to set the oom policy of the root mem > cgroup, it would lose its effect of mandating that policy for any subtree > since it would become configurable by the user if delegated. Why can't we propagate the mount option into the subtrees? If the user then alters that behaviour with new added-by-David tunables then fine, that's still backward compatible. > Let me put it another way: if the cgroup aware oom killer is merged for > 4.16 without this patchset, userspace can reasonably infer the oom policy > from checking how cgroups were mounted. If my followup patchset were > merged for 4.17, that's invalid and it becomes dependent on kernel > version: it could have the "groupoom" mount option but configured through > the root mem cgroup's memory.oom_policy to not be cgroup aware at all. That concern seems unreasonable to me. Is an application *really* going to peek at the mount options to figure out what its present oom policy is? Well, maybe. But that's a pretty dopey thing to do and I wouldn't lose much sleep over breaking any such application in the very unlikely case that such a thing was developed in that two-month window. If that's really a concern then let's add (to Roman's patchset) a proper interface for an application to query its own oom policy. > That inconsistency, to me, is unfair to burden userspace with. > > > > This, and fixes to fairly compare the root mem cgroup with leaf mem > > > cgroups, are essential before the feature is merged otherwise it yields > > > wildly unpredictable (and unexpected, since its interaction with > > > oom_score_adj isn't documented) results as I already demonstrated where > > > cgroups with 1GB of usage are killed instead of 6GB workers outside of > > > that subtree. > > > > OK, so Roman's new feature is incomplete: it satisfies some use cases > > but not others. And we kinda have a plan to address the other use > > cases in the future. > > > > Those use cases are also undocumented such that the user doesn't know the > behavior they are opting into. Nowhere in the patchset does it mention > anything about oom_score_adj other than being oom disabled. It doesn't > mention that a per-process tunable now depends strictly on whether it is > attached to root or not. It specifies a fair comparison between the root > mem cgroup and leaf mem cgroups, which is obviously incorrect by the > implementation itself. So I'm not sure the user would know which use > cases it is valid for, which is why I've been trying to make it generally > purposeful and documented. Documentation patches are nice. We can cc:stable them too, so no huge hurry. > > There's nothing wrong with that! As long as we don't break existing > > setups while evolving the feature. How do we do that? > > > > We'd break the setups that actually configure their cgroups and processes > to abide by the current implementation since we'd need to discount > oom_score_adj from the the root mem cgroup usage to fix it. Am having trouble understanding that. Expand, please? Can we address this (and other such) issues in the (interim) documentation? -- 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>
