Hi David On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:02:20AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > We have basically ended up with 3 options AFAIR: > > > 1) allow memcg approach (memcg.oom_control) on the root level > > > for both OOM notification and blocking OOM killer and handle > > > the situation from the userspace same as we can for other > > > memcgs. > > > > This looks like a straightforward approach as the similar thing is done > > on the local (memcg) level. There are several problems though. > > Running userspace from within OOM context is terribly hard to do > > right. > > Not sure it's hard if you have per-memcg memory reserves which I've > brought up in the past with true and complete kmem accounting. Even if > you don't allocate slab, it guarantees that there will be at least a > little excess memory available so that the userspace oom handler isn't oom > itself. > > This involves treating processes waiting on memory.oom_control to be > treated as a special class so that they are allowed to allocate an > additional pre-configured amount of memory. For non-root memcgs, this > would simply be a dummy usage that would be charged to the memcg when the > oom notification is registered and actually accessible only by the oom > handler itself while memcg->under_oom. For root memcgs, this would simply > be a PF_MEMALLOC type behavior that dips into per-zone memory reserves. > > > This is true even in the memcg case and we strongly discurage > > users from doing that. The global case has nothing like outside of OOM > > context though. So any hang would blocking the whole machine. > > Why would there be a hang if the userspace oom handlers aren't actually > oom themselves as described above? > > I'd suggest against the other two suggestions because hierarchical > per-memcg userspace oom handlers are very powerful and can be useful > without actually killing anything at all, and parent oom handlers can > signal child oom handlers to free memory in oom conditions (in other > words, defer a parent oom condition to a child's oom handler upon
Is not vmpressure notifications was designed for that purpose? Vladimir > notification). I was planning on writing a liboom library that would lay > the foundation for how this was supposed to work and some generic > functions that make use of the per-memcg memory reserves. > > So my plan for the complete solution was: > > - allow userspace notification from the root memcg on system oom > conditions, > > - implement a memory.oom_delay_millisecs timeout so that the kernel > eventually intervenes if userspace fails to respond, including for > system oom conditions, for whatever reason which would be set to 0 > if no userspace oom handler is registered for the notification, and > > - implement per-memcg reserves as described above so that userspace oom > handlers have access to memory even in oom conditions as an upfront > charge and have the ability to free memory as necessary. > > We already have the ability to do the actual kill from userspace, both the > system oom killer and the memcg oom killer grants access to memory > reserves for any process needing to allocate memory if it has a pending > SIGKILL which we can send from userspace. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"d...@kvack.org";> em...@kvack.org </a> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
