Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:28:58 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 -mm 3/6] mm, memcg: add hierarchical usage oom policy
Message-ID: <20180723212855.GA25062@castle>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803121755590.192200@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803151351140.55261@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803161405410.209509@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803221451370.17056@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807131604560.217600@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807131605590.217600@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20180716181613.GA28327@castle>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807162101170.157949@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807231331510.105582@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807231331510.105582@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2018 21:29:03.9116 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f4d93f02-0e32-46c1-c18a-08d5f0e350e6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR15MB0167
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-07-23_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:33:19PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, David Rientjes wrote:
> 
> > > And "tree" is different. It actually changes how the selection algorithm works,
> > > and sub-tree settings do matter in this case.
> > > 
> > 
> > "Tree" is considering the entity as a single indivisible memory consumer, 
> > it is compared with siblings based on its hierarhical usage.  It has 
> > cgroup oom policy.
> > 
> > It would be possible to separate this out, if you'd prefer, to account 
> > an intermediate cgroup as the largest descendant or the sum of all 
> > descendants.  I hadn't found a usecase for that, however, but it doesn't 
> > mean there isn't one.  If you'd like, I can introduce another tunable.
> > 
> 
> Roman, I'm trying to make progress so that the cgroup aware oom killer is 
> in a state that it can be merged.  Would you prefer a second tunable here 
> to specify a cgroup's points includes memory from its subtree?

Hi, David!

It's hard to tell, because I don't have a clear picture of what you're
suggesting now. My biggest concern about your last version was that it's hard
to tell what oom_policy really defines. Each value has it's own application
rules, which is a bit messy (some values are meaningful for OOMing cgroup only,
other are reading on hierarchy traversal).
If you know how to make it clear and non-contradictory,
please, describe the proposed interface.

> 
> It would be helpful if you would also review the rest of the patchset.

I think, that we should focus on interface semantics right now.
If we can't agree on how the things should work, it makes no sense
to discuss the implementation.

Thanks!