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, 11 Mar 2019 14:46:51 -0700
From:   Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android
Message-ID: <20190311214651.GA882@sultan-box.localdomain>
References: <20190310203403.27915-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com>
 <20190311174320.GC5721@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190311175800.GA5522@sultan-box.localdomain>
 <CAJuCfpHTjXejo+u--3MLZZj7kWQVbptyya4yp1GLE3hB=BBX7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190311204626.GA3119@sultan-box.localdomain>
 <20190311211125.GA127617@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190311211125.GA127617@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:11:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> But the point is that a transient temporary memory spike should not be a
> signal to kill _any_ process.  The reaction to kill shouldn't be so
> spontaneous that unwanted tasks are killed because the system went into
> panic mode. It should be averaged out which I believe is what PSI does.

In my patch from the first email, I implemented the decision to kill a process
at the same time that the existing kernel OOM killer decides to kill a process.
If the kernel's OOM killer were susceptible to killing processes due to
transient memory spikes, then I think there would have been several complaints
about this behavior regardless of which userspace or architecture is in use.
I think the existing OOM killer has this done right.

The decision to kill a process occurs after the page allocator has tried _very_
hard to satisfy a page allocation via alternative means, such as utilizing
compaction, flushing file-backed pages to disk via kswapd, and direct reclaim.
Once all of those means have failed, it is quite reasonable to kill a process to
free memory. Trying to wait out the memory starvation at this point would be
futile.

Thanks,
Sultan