From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2F4C10F14 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E5C2084D for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:19:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1555006790; bh=erla34GshncnxpolJ449wDmS39PvkK4ufukuKwAHXts=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=wITwWrb4LrP+2GCtaQw6TbncK/t7wEUFH8tIE0ptlnVDC9ptkBm7lEgSa1ZtjAeok HycMEh69UsSXyvJOtmHx+xDIWXaJmfVBtiq05tod+GkbNwR5zT7eYjyvNA9Mp08/s0 x7Nn+7lAWsrx6FnY8F2FCcQ6AR5jZeC+knerPYwc= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726765AbfDKSTs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:19:48 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36728 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726577AbfDKSTs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:19:48 -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 1E593AD3E; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:19:46 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Suren Baghdasaryan Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com, Souptick Joarder , Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Tetsuo Handa , ebiederm@xmission.com, Shakeel Butt , Christian Brauner , Minchan Kim , Tim Murray , Daniel Colascione , Joel Fernandes , Jann Horn , linux-mm , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , kernel-team Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] opportunistic memory reclaim of a killed process Message-ID: <20190411181946.GC10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190411014353.113252-1-surenb@google.com> <20190411105111.GR10383@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Thu 11-04-19 09:47:31, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: [...] > > I would question whether we really need this at all? Relying on the exit > > speed sounds like a fundamental design problem of anything that relies > > on it. > > Relying on it is wrong, I agree. There are protections like allocation > throttling that we can fall back to stop memory depletion. However > having a way to free up resources that are not needed by a dying > process quickly would help to avoid throttling which hurts user > experience. I am not opposing speeding up the exit time in general. That is a good thing. Especially for a very large processes (e.g. a DB). But I do not really think we want to expose an API to control this specific aspect. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs