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_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 8D1CBC3F68F for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BE824680 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:37:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576841870; bh=PoKeYq0D9fvJVRVU8du99GUzDT7gpGmoweFFZtR/B6A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=ZpyAgyPOmuiYcv1slAPuwQ8f8l3QwvgJIUpzxfISVVgoqVlPMYCZ14KWDNEIjQrVe VLJXW9lns/wwtMQWlMaNq4cg6TgtdvJHkdmU1jGoVQWVzjB94g+XM9MtQRRSeEWFby S8QZlBGiWYiQo8vsn8rhKW5HNLcWDx5ii2vZsPfY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727359AbfLTLht (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:37:49 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:53923 "EHLO mail-wm1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727184AbfLTLht (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:37:49 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id m24so8595226wmc.3; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:37:47 -0800 (PST) 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=+xqrG/Fr+lk5K0m1pptDnTQOO1AdoG749ulUXApgoJo=; b=PjsD4G79liFs7IK7ZIxgjW2sIjJcOIfF+7D7HWaxyXYhsvxdmoVfdm6JcF9Nx73Z1R TyohPsE7Cu/VZJ6zF2X2we0ZT2jojRde9jJfztrNF1L9GVPHyFe3RYwUudRcgyekELW7 WWXZIM1jZeqvL8Yy6TCLojYuNcVEnswyssEMe20oFdgX42rcvIczqRv9XBzTHRxT83u5 hhIWjkdJM2TGxu0+lr6k7jao1sKPUuH89boBbj0Xkz65zGTtkIfasMH1zfZFFOYiPnhr OoDuK7ugzv4yViuSre3YsmfCaAtgKUuU6yhXNxzqdhXHOoPZtudqwCZgY5BTrZQvfn/u qm4w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVe85pwyqnDUtNdqIXch42djNI2d3K2fmoy/mJ61rsZto6pDFNk HUWg7i/y0H0UrHFADaryFlc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxea3sQYL0zemf/BDfh/Fngl+lzOAoLU0x312PESG6f2yo0GmWBhUf3frSoVwbx7/PQps66Kg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:638a:: with SMTP id x132mr16983341wmb.43.1576841866625; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f1sm9955905wrp.93.2019.12.20.03.37.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:37:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:37:44 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: =?utf-8?B?5b2t5b+X5Yia?= Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, Shakeel Butt , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zgpeng Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: choose a more suitable process to kill while all processes are not killable Message-ID: <20191220113744.GF20332@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1576823172-25943-1-git-send-email-zgpeng.linux@gmail.com> <20191220071334.GB20332@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Please do not top post] On Fri 20-12-19 17:56:20, 彭志刚 wrote: > certainly. > > Steps to reproduce: > (1)Create a mm cgroup and set memory.limit_in_bytes > (2)Move the bash process to the newly created cgroup, and set the > oom_score_adj of the bash process to -998. > (3)In bash, start multiple processes, each process consumes different > memory until cgroup oom is triggered. > > The triggered phenomenon is shown below. We can see that when cgroup oom > happened, process 23777 was killed, but in fact, 23772 consumes more memory; > > [ 591.000970] Tasks state (memory values in pages): > [ 591.000970] [ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss pgtables_bytes swapents oom_score_adj name > [ 591.000973] [ 23344] 0 23344 2863 923 61440 0 -998 bash > [ 591.000975] [ 23714] 0 23714 27522 25935 258048 0 -998 test > [ 591.000976] [ 23772] 0 23772 104622 103032 876544 0 -998 test points = 103032 + 0 + 876544/4096 = 103246 > [ 591.000978] [ 23777] 0 23777 78922 77335 667648 0 -998 test points = 77335 + 0 + 667648/4096 = 77498 It is not clear what is the actual hard limit but let's assume that rss+page_tables is the only charged memory (or at least the majority of it). That would be 207680 so the normalized oom_score_adj would be -206586 which is way too big for both tasks so from the OOM killer perspective both tasks are equal. The question is whether this is a bug or a (mis)feature. The oom_score_adj je documented as follows: Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt : Consequently, it is very simple for userspace to define the amount of memory to : consider for each task. Setting a /proc//oom_score_adj value of +500, for : example, is roughly equivalent to allowing the remainder of tasks sharing the : same system, cpuset, mempolicy, or memory controller resources to use at least : 50% more memory. A value of -500, on the other hand, would be roughly : equivalent to discounting 50% of the task's allowed memory from being considered : as scoring against the task. Which implies that we are talking about the budget based on a usable memory (aka hard limit in this case). I do agree that the semantic is awkward. I know there are usecases which try to use the existing scheme for oom_score_adj to fine tune oom decisions and I am worried your patch might break those. That being said, I am not sure this change is safe wrt. to backward compatibility. I would rather recommend to not using oom_score_adj for anything but OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MIN resp OOM_SCORE_ADJ_MAX. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs