On Mon 29-07-24 02:14:13, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > On 29/07/2024 08:37, Li Zhijian wrote: > > Michal, > > > > Sorry to the late reply. > > > > > > On 26/07/2024 17:17, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Fri 26-07-24 16:44:56, Li Zhijian wrote: > >>> When a process is bound to a node that is being hot-removed, any memory > >>> allocation attempts from that node should fail gracefully without > >>> triggering the OOM-killer. However, the current behavior can cause the > >>> oom-killer to be invoked, leading to the termination of processes on other > >>> nodes, even when there is sufficient memory available in the system. > >> > >> But you said they are bound to the node that is offlined. > >>> Prevent the oom-killer from being triggered by processes bound to a > >>> node undergoing hot-remove operations. Instead, the allocation attempts > >>> from the offlining node will simply fail, allowing the process to handle > >>> the failure appropriately without causing disruption to the system. > >> > >> NAK. > >> > >> Also it is not really clear why process of offlining should behave any > >> different from after the node is offlined. Could you describe an actual > >> problem you are facing with much more details please? > > > > We encountered that some processes(including some system critical services, for example sshd, rsyslogd, login) > > were killed during our memory hot-remove testing. Our test program are described previous mail[1] > > > > In short, we have 3 memory nodes, node0 and node1 are DRAM, while node2 is CXL volatile memory that is onlined > > to ZONE_MOVABLE. When we attempted to remove the node2, oom-killed was invoked to kill other processes > > (sshd, rsyslogd, login) even though there is enough memory on node0+node1. What are sizes of those nodes, how much memory does the testing program consumes and do you have oom report without the patch applied? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
