Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200709062603.18480-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20200709062603.18480-2-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <CALOAHbAezHHN58cn0unLNbOjHJyYW=zhzQxpQD8_rD4O7qmYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200709081813.GD19160@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CALOAHbDZLM4bfGi7EQDzE6FabBinnZJ7yF+uZADUgx2S_pfg1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200709095840.GE19160@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200709095840.GE19160@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 19:20:01 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbC9bk10=GFt7SO9=XOEdvMUkOKnaWOJxuKK7YTshimyRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc, mm: clarify /proc/<pid>/oom_score value range
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:58 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu 09-07-20 17:01:06, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:18 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu 09-07-20 15:41:11, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:26 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The exported value includes oom_score_adj so the range is no [0, 1000]
> > > > > as described in the previous section but rather [0, 2000]. Mention that
> > > > > fact explicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst | 3 +++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > > > > index 8e3b5dffcfa8..78a0dec323a3 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst
> > > > > @@ -1673,6 +1673,9 @@ requires CAP_SYS_RESOURCE.
> > > > >  3.2 /proc/<pid>/oom_score - Display current oom-killer score
> > > > >  -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > +Please note that the exported value includes oom_score_adj so it is effectively
> > > > > +in range [0,2000].
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > [0, 2000] may be not a proper range, see my reply in another thread.[1]
> > > > As this value hasn't been documented before and nobody notices that, I
> > > > think there might be no user really care about it before.
> > > > So we should discuss the proper range if we really think the user will
> > > > care about this value.
> > >
> > > Even if we decide the range should change, I do not really assume this
> > > will happen, it is good to have the existing behavior clarified.
> > >
> >
> > But the existing behavior is not defined in the kernel documentation
> > before, so I don't think that the user has a clear understanding of
> > the existing behavior.
>
> Well, documentation is by no means authoritative, especially when it is
> outdated or incomplete. What really matters is the observed behavior and
> a lot of userspace depends on that or based on the specific
> implementation.
>
> > The way to use the result of proc_oom_score is to compare which
> > processes will be killed first by the OOM killer, IOW, the user should
> > always use it to compare different processes. For example,
> >
> > if proc_oom_score(process_a) > proc_oom_score(process_b)
> > then
> >      process_a will be killed before process_b
> > fi
> >
> > And then  the user will "Use it together with
> > /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj to tune which
> >  process should be killed in an out-of-memory situation."
> >
> > That means what the user really cares about is the relative value, and
> > they will not care about the range or the absolute value.
>
> In an ideal world yes. But the real life tells a different story. Many
> times userspace (ab)uses certain undocumented/unintended (mis)features
> and the hard rule is that we never break userspace. We've learned that
> through many painful historical experiences. Especially vaguely defined
> functionality suffers from the problem.
> --

All right. I don't insist if we think the change in range may break
the userspace.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang