Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: oom: introduce cpuset oom

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

 





On 2023/4/11 21:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 11-04-23 21:04:18, Gang Li wrote:


On 2023/4/11 20:23, Michal Koutný wrote:
Hello.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:58:15PM +0800, Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+	cpuset_for_each_descendant_pre(cs, pos_css, &top_cpuset) {
+		if (nodes_equal(cs->mems_allowed, task_cs(current)->mems_allowed)) {
+			css_task_iter_start(&(cs->css), CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS, &it);
+			while (!ret && (task = css_task_iter_next(&it)))
+				ret = fn(task, arg);
+			css_task_iter_end(&it);
+		}
+	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	cpuset_read_unlock();
+	return ret;
+}

I see this traverses all cpusets without the hierarchy actually
mattering that much. Wouldn't the CONSTRAINT_CPUSET better achieved by
globally (or per-memcg) scanning all processes and filtering with:

Oh I see, you mean scanning all processes in all cpusets and scanning
all processes globally are equivalent.

Why cannot you simple select a process from the cpuset the allocating
process belongs to? I thought the whole idea was to handle well
partitioned workloads.


Yes I can :) It's much easier.

	nodes_intersect(current->mems_allowed, p->mems_allowed

Perhaps it would be better to use nodes_equal first, and if no suitable
victim is found, then downgrade to nodes_intersect?

How can this happen?

NUMA balancing mechanism tends to keep memory on the same NUMA node, and
if the selected victim's memory happens to be on a node that does not
intersect with the current process's node, we still won't be able to
free up any memory.

AFAIR NUMA balancing doesn't touch processes with memory policies.





[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