[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [v11 3/6] mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer
On Wed 11-10-17 13:27:44, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > For these reasons: unfair comparison of root mem cgroup usage to bias
> > > against that mem cgroup from oom kill in system oom conditions, the
> > > ability of users to completely evade the oom killer by attaching all
> > > processes to child cgroups either purposefully or unpurposefully, and the
> > > inability of userspace to effectively control oom victim selection:
> > >
> > > Nacked-by: David Rientjes <>
> >
> > I consider this NACK rather dubious. Evading the heuristic as you
> > describe requires root privileges in default configuration because
> > normal users are not allowed to create subtrees. If you
> > really want to delegate subtree to an untrusted entity then you do not
> > have to opt-in for this oom strategy. We can work on an additional means
> > which would allow to cover those as well (e.g. priority based one which
> > is requested for other usecases).
> >
> You're missing the point that the user is trusted and it may be doing
> something to circumvent oom kill unknowingly.

I would really like to see a practical example of something like that. I
am not saying this is completely impossible but as already pointed out
this _can_ be addressed _on top_ of the current implementation. We will
need some way to consider hierarchies anyway.

So I really fail to see why this would be a blocker. After all it
is no different than skipping oom selection by splitting a process
(knowingly or otherwise) into subprocesses which is possible even
now. OOM killer selection has never been, will not be and cannot be
perfect in principal. Quite contrary, the more clever the heuristics are
trying to be the more corner cases they might generate as we could see
in the past.

> With a single unified
> hierarchy, the user is forced to attach its processes to subcontainers if
> it wants to constrain resources with other controllers. Doing so ends up
> completely avoiding oom kill because of this implementation detail. It
> has nothing to do with trust and the admin who is opting-in will not know
> a user has cirumvented oom kill purely because it constrains its processes
> with controllers other than the memory controller.
> > A similar argument applies to the root memcg evaluation. While the
> > proposed behavior is not optimal it would work for general usecase
> > described here where the root memcg doesn't really run any large number
> > of tasks. If somebody who explicitly opts-in for the new strategy and it
> > doesn't work well for that usecase we can enhance the behavior. That
> > alone is not a reason to nack the whole thing.
> >
> > I find it really disturbing that you keep nacking this approach just
> > because it doesn't suite your specific usecase while it doesn't break
> > it. Moreover it has been stated several times already that future
> > improvements are possible and cover what you have described already.
> This has nothing to do with my specific usecase.

Well, I might be really wrong but it is hard to not notice how most of
your complains push towards hierarchical level-by-level comparisons.
Which has been considered and deemed unsuitable for the default cgroup
aware oom selection because it imposes structural constrains on how
the hierarchy is organized and thus disallow many usecases. So pushing
for this just because it resembles your current inhouse implementation
leaves me with a feeling that you care more about your usecase than a
general usability.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-12 08:33    [W:0.042 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site