Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:42:45 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, <nzimmer@sgi.com>,
        <holt@sgi.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <sivanich@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [v7 5/5] mm, oom: cgroup v2 mount option to disable cgroup-aware
 OOM killer
Message-ID: <20170907164245.GA21177@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20170905134412.qdvqcfhvbdzmarna@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170905143021.GA28599@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com>
 <20170905151251.luh4wogjd3msfqgf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170905191609.GA19687@castle.dhcp.TheFacebook.com>
 <20170906084242.l4rcx6n3hdzxvil6@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170906174043.GA12579@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1709061355001.70553@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709070939340.19539@nuc-kabylake>
 <20170907145239.GA19022@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709071001580.19736@nuc-kabylake>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709071001580.19736@nuc-kabylake>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2017 16:42:58.0619 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR15MB1077
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-09-07_10:,,
 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: 1214
Lines: 23

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:03:24AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 
> > > Really? From what I know and worked on way back when: The reason was to be
> > > able to contain the affected application in a cpuset. Multiple apps may
> > > have been running in multiple cpusets on a large NUMA machine and the OOM
> > > condition in one cpuset should not affect the other. It also helped to
> > > isolate the application behavior causing the oom in numerous cases.
> > >
> > > Doesnt this requirement transfer to cgroups in the same way?
> >
> > We have per-node memory stats and plan to use them during the OOM victim
> > selection. Hopefully it can help.
> 
> One of the OOM causes could be that memory was restricted to a certain
> node set. Killing the allocating task is (was?) default behavior in that
> case so that the task that has the restrictions is killed. Not any task
> that may not have the restrictions and woiuld not experience OOM.

As I can see, it's not the default behavior these days. If we have a way
to select a victim between memcgs/tasks which are actually using
the corresponding type of memory, it's much better than to kill
an allocating task.