Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp4017106imm; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY9flxbyxeXwdBZ/V40iIQjvCXgnyCyUp1BDvjFdK0zil1jEcf9gRKNiBxSg11CviuopXaC X-Received: by 2002:a63:c347:: with SMTP id e7-v6mr28604665pgd.240.1536670165889; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1536670165; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OKu+dLDFCNjFaJfrfbMhgZ6LfQJpyAzXKbKWG1+a9BlRR1Cbpd2KrCLcslfbUefzd2 dR0Y3b2QlAsakQqprVdFze9a+bCs2t6qZz5qYUBAyyyClOpZO0qYui5zLTGt4zCEMbvi IrdaQ3+4Phd8EDhsdEHSPG4WtofRhdYNSnHNw7DgaBwmlq3G3KMdt8mw3Iyxno9BHAS+ 9u7JyFoHzsdmdXqznKgeaI4pfwxeZlwCvTDLcDRdLgSAAmNJLYhTNdhy+XZC6vRfLxsl 1AiLtbPUlWVcgephigAYoN07pt+b0w/wJeDFZ1WyQNFRDHJr/Jbzq/mtWk02cvyhaORk M2zQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=I7R4jOUrueRlemP6F087KUz5n9Z7bMNSUPG1xEJxB14=; b=BQyrVxGVFJlEJwWPeiclTzqgFgwtbDiYlwlM7Cc2F7EukUz5kbsJkezc+9u0d60ymJ NJ9yTBQ+5o7AhvtIxm0H8xlnK7UAmv3TKejicz0a3l2+ksT8wImKwcrRcRh/nd16T91i VumAlGShK7ztOrcXgYupCMjkkplJsX3cBeOmxNNHa8DKUBMIZKJpWm1QLUwAOag00HZ/ tA8bv88Vlg8OuAV9dXrCBSC2VWgzFGnnIwf0mUXSyj8m9/HRQm5ldSreZmnOooH1yaKR UVOe8+d9F0VF8ks1K6r+Zhi4EXBfqmw3GCrjAXsd3PEJn4EyikSGJewNS2LOBlFk0aX8 YnBg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c3-v6si20135946pfg.181.2018.09.11.05.49.09; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 05:49:25 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727748AbeIKRqu (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:46:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37664 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726950AbeIKRqu (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:46:50 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4451DAF02; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:47:37 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: peter enderborg Cc: Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: don't raise MEMCG_OOM event due to failed high-order allocation Message-ID: <20180911124737.GV10951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180910215622.4428-1-guro@fb.com> <20180911121141.GS10951@dhcp22.suse.cz> <0ea4cdbd-dc3f-1b66-8a5f-8d67ab0e2bc9@sony.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0ea4cdbd-dc3f-1b66-8a5f-8d67ab0e2bc9@sony.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 11-09-18 14:41:04, peter enderborg wrote: > On 09/11/2018 02:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Why is this a problem though? IIRC this event was deliberately placed > > outside of the oom path because we wanted to count allocation failures > > and this is also documented that way > > > > oom > > The number of time the cgroup's memory usage was > > reached the limit and allocation was about to fail. > > > > Depending on context result could be invocation of OOM > > killer and retrying allocation or failing a > > > > One could argue that we do not apply the same logic to GFP_NOWAIT > > requests but in general I would like to see a good reason to change > > the behavior and if it is really the right thing to do then we need to > > update the documentation as well. > > > > Why not introduce a MEMCG_ALLOC_FAIL in to memcg_memory_event? My understanding is that this is what the oom event is about. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs