Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: introduce per memcg oom_score_adj

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:19 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 22-08-19 04:56:29, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > - Why we need a per memcg oom_score_adj setting ?
> > This is easy to deploy and very convenient for container.
> > When we use container, we always treat memcg as a whole, if we have a per
> > memcg oom_score_adj setting we don't need to set it process by process.
>
> Why cannot an initial process in the cgroup set the oom_score_adj and
> other processes just inherit it from there? This sounds trivial to do
> with a startup script.
>

That is what we used to do before.
But it can't apply to the running containers.


> > It will make the user exhausted to set it to all processes in a memcg.
>
> Then let's have scripts to set it as they are less prone to exhaustion
> ;)

That is not easy to deploy it to the production environment.

> But seriously
>
> > In this patch, a file named memory.oom.score_adj is introduced.
> > The valid value of it is from -1000 to +1000, which is same with
> > process-level oom_score_adj.
> > When OOM is invoked, the effective oom_score_adj is as bellow,
> >     effective oom_score_adj = original oom_score_adj + memory.oom.score_adj
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me. Say that process has oom_score_adj
> -1000 (never kill) then group oom_score_adj will simply break the
> expectation and the task becomes killable for any value but -1000.
> Why is summing up those values even sensible?
>

Ah, good catch. This needs to be improved.

> > The valid effective value is also from -1000 to +1000.
> > This is something like a hook to re-calculate the oom_score_adj.
>
> Besides that. What is the hierarchical semantic? Say you have hierarchy
>         A (oom_score_adj = 1000)
>          \
>           B (oom_score_adj = 500)
>            \
>             C (oom_score_adj = -1000)
>
> put the above summing up aside for now and just focus on the memcg
> adjusting?

I think that there's no conflict between children's oom_score_adj,
that is different with memory.max.
So it is not neccessary to consider the parent's oom_sore_adj.

Thanks

Yafang




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux