Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:57:50 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v5 2/4] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
Message-ID: <20170815125750.GB15892@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com>
References: <20170814183213.12319-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20170814183213.12319-3-guro@fb.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1708141532300.63207@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20170815121558.GA15892@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com>
 <f769d03d-5743-b794-a249-bb52b408ab0e@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f769d03d-5743-b794-a249-bb52b408ab0e@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2017 12:58:03.0744 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR15MB1078
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-08-15_09:,,
 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 940
Lines: 20

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:18PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 10:15 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Generally, oom_score_adj should have a meaning only on a cgroup level,
> > so extending it to the system level doesn't sound as a good idea.
> 
> But wasn't the original purpose of oom_score (and oom_score_adj) to work on
> a system level, aka "normal" OOM? Is there some peculiarity about memcg OOM
> that I'm missing?

I'm sorry, if it wasn't clear from my message, it's not about
the system-wide OOM vs the memcg-wide OOM, it's about the isolation.

In general, decision is made on memcg level first (based on oom_priority
and size), and only then on a task level (based on size and oom_score_adj).

Oom_score_adj affects which task inside the cgroup will be killed,
but we never compare tasks from different cgroups. This is what I mean,
when I'm saying, that oom_score_adj should not have a system-wide meaning.

Thanks!