Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp503801pxb; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLpNV8YKkENjkNJvCDHQIyj90f7qhO5/Kw/aOVkDWY6dSWZfrD+Iy2/HrAPxVP31K67/aD X-Received: by 2002:a02:2243:: with SMTP id o64mr8308384jao.40.1629296414406; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1629296414; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Qw4BSu95A1UEgRq4OC6yXWkSbOcXSzF6q7iKBXep9UJv/IjjliMxQu93WGm91LV/q9 LkyjqwarVJgV59Gbp6fVUMlj64RBaaFhYWyJUI47pruX6u/I2CQ+wPGyPPKdtedf2KbL e32CBZkfnBiz0XnhJqE5aSNTBPjp0sndxIzfUbmEoRepGV+sKL5nkDmWhHJ8KnwQ7DXN /aBaPAJBnajYUHl6fcYurF0nRJTVg7wy4wUntwgwD5RlYH7pHasWqJOzBCk7e7lj7osB K4AHkArmvsfhRyGBw5C6V6r9SGvUG4xv7eg/1ipUM3medCVF4WODNHIN7B7hh9Uq8M0B B57A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=rg02+w1DlkJobhoJY9bM97YQwIjcX3dhjCH/vsEFgP0=; b=hiz0PzmBaIzJj7aiHFgvAbZb3AgEXeS7WCrQ2UrMroFEOKQTGKAQE++irturUCYfLs ifUfndGkT9e+nTK3aMxotAjjcoEvESSP3spaSrAFgtJzCv3HAwnmSjs48J5Cnpj8ofGW kZVjlRGNIOc2EHBB7Jye7eyxVhUgv2d0F1+PtF8i/Bvy1Fzh+gVdWtdpJ7O78HYWIo7X 2ec/xPDz+Ya1EwiYDEjQ40mEHBw2Fa1F88jU/3X7P1hAqrXG4cLfc4LjA+3qCnoRWrEm r6PR+oTCcsvU1lg5CTCmSDsgawZ8XNVAoXyVrxVkzT7oZlt+TlSkLhpHs2BdYc+bGdyI frTg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b="IJM3/57o"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c6si5465045jal.120.2021.08.18.07.20.02; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b="IJM3/57o"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239489AbhHROSI (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:18:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46560 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240049AbhHROOw (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:14:52 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FC31C061796 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id c14so1711142qvs.9 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rg02+w1DlkJobhoJY9bM97YQwIjcX3dhjCH/vsEFgP0=; b=IJM3/57oMfrwBGTxX1IHTSufxeq6P3Ds6XRZvE9DZaQYu6SrVcwDRerEYF25qu7X1B P60N9RrgrRNag8tqLyPwd2wzaLi9O55qN9diwm9sZAtemcAodh0vkx7GORHTW9R5W2LY rV/W0SNTLdFLW8cLcW0Qu/6ySAJpxaO6I9bAxGJSjR5kQXqiY7nMpO/wVGbIlV0HDfjw dYuz+g7ZxYVhUxmQisLCpNH+9kMNrqw8fYLGpqtTiUzPzHScZLMpGUR7odgvREoOGyvq uG3PAzekn0lUz/hG2/KBgIhbNa18vFUOGqnNMOmaodYK+aTh4+ylfiWpcrP7Zlm5Pd0x G6kA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rg02+w1DlkJobhoJY9bM97YQwIjcX3dhjCH/vsEFgP0=; b=o1silUbXGaurKLEfsp4OOfHQScZsRL5W1oyYjRjpjDrpWa4nYaIm6i7CjP6H3/MDoK O49GuHJVe3ph4Yzl1zc5ftc5yMWrO5kO0ZD9ygXOPTg2m23FoPckYV1HJ6UZSaDowE33 J5TFIyYj8wP47gOiOSgHnVGs+1R91asa4KZQvkRwIJjK3CNpF0Y1GaaLiuNqR8eWHw86 pM7kiI9460hx0ivtKO2ExvXKBjh5StAX2r0FPwBFmIsqoOv8i2BmR/94K0r349rwolk2 8O93x4UPvJcpc22gc+WEuoPovRvkCT4uvkgUgJZdYoxxHRpHrCB+5sTII2oCvhQaetld LiwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HpLWo69dP4QExvfRm4B2erWb5rRU55g+BlN7UFQQNnUaJG4+G 3xXOwebejxNUtU2bwvraTmD+lA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fd21:: with SMTP id i1mr9140058qvs.29.1629296026700; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpe-98-15-154-102.hvc.res.rr.com. [98.15.154.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o10sm59259qtv.31.2021.08.18.07.13.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 18 Aug 2021 07:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:15:24 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , Leon Yang , Chris Down , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim Message-ID: References: <20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:45:18PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:05:06PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > We've noticed occasional OOM killing when memory.low settings are in > > effect for cgroups. This is unexpected and undesirable as memory.low > > is supposed to express non-OOMing memory priorities between cgroups. > > > > The reason for this is proportional memory.low reclaim. When cgroups > > are below their memory.low threshold, reclaim passes them over in the > > first round, and then retries if it couldn't find pages anywhere else. > > But when cgroups are slighly above their memory.low setting, page scan > > force is scaled down and diminished in proportion to the overage, to > > the point where it can cause reclaim to fail as well - only in that > > case we currently don't retry, and instead trigger OOM. > > > > To fix this, hook proportional reclaim into the same retry logic we > > have in place for when cgroups are skipped entirely. This way if > > reclaim fails and some cgroups were scanned with dimished pressure, > > we'll try another full-force cycle before giving up and OOMing. > > > > Reported-by: Leon Yang > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Thank you. > I guess it's a stable material, so maybe adding: > Fixes: 9783aa9917f8 ("mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim") Yes, that Fixes makes sense. Plus: Cc: # 5.4+ I initially didn't tag it because the issue is over two years old and we've had no other reports of this. But thinking about it, it's probably more a lack of users rather than severity. At FB we only noticed with a recent rollout of memory_recursiveprot (8a931f801340c2be10552c7b5622d5f4852f3a36) because we didn't have working memory.low configurations before that. But now that we do notice, it's a problem worth fixing. So yes, stable makes sense. Thanks.