Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mm/oom_kill: count global and memory cgroup oom kills | From | Konstantin Khlebnikov <> | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:35:22 +0300 |
| |
On 13.09.2017 07:51, PINTU KUMAR wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have submitted a similar patch 2 years ago (Oct/2015). > But at that time the patch was rejected. > Here is the history: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/1/372 > > Now I see the similar patch got accepted. At least the initial idea and the objective were same. > Even I were not included here. > On one side I feel happy that my initial idea got accepted now. > But on the other side it really hurts :( >
If this makes you feel better: mine version also fixes uncertainty in memory cgroup statistics.
> > Thanks, > Pintu > > > On Monday 5 June 2017, 7:57:57 PM IST, Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > On 05.06.2017 11:50, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 25-05-17 13:28:30, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > >> Show count of oom killer invocations in /proc/vmstat and count of > >> processes killed in memory cgroup in knob "memory.events" > >> (in memory.oom_control for v1 cgroup). > >> > >> Also describe difference between "oom" and "oom_kill" in memory > >> cgroup documentation. Currently oom in memory cgroup kills tasks > >> iff shortage has happened inside page fault. > >> > >> These counters helps in monitoring oom kills - for now > >> the only way is grepping for magic words in kernel log. > > > > Yes this is less than optimal and the counter sounds like a good step > > forward. I have 2 comments to the patch though. > > > > [...] > > > >> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > >> index 899949bbb2f9..42296f7001da 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > >> @@ -556,8 +556,11 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm, > >> > >> rcu_read_lock(); > >> memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(rcu_dereference(mm->owner)); > >> - if (likely(memcg)) > >> + if (likely(memcg)) { > >> this_cpu_inc(memcg->stat->events[idx]); > >> + if (idx == OOM_KILL) > >> + cgroup_file_notify(&memcg->events_file); > >> + } > >> rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > Well, this is ugly. I see how you want to share the global counter and > > the memcg event which needs the notification. But I cannot say this > > would be really easy to follow. Can we have at least a comment in > > memcg_event_item enum definition? > > Yep, this is a little bit ugly. > But this funciton is static-inline and idx always constant so resulting code is fine. > > > > >> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > >> index 04c9143a8625..dd30a045ef5b 100644 > >> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > >> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > >> @@ -876,6 +876,11 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message) > >> /* Get a reference to safely compare mm after task_unlock(victim) */ > >> mm = victim->mm; > >> mmgrab(mm); > >> + > >> + /* Raise event before sending signal: reaper must see this */ > >> + count_vm_event(OOM_KILL); > >> + mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(mm, OOM_KILL); > >> + > >> /* > >> * We should send SIGKILL before setting TIF_MEMDIE in order to prevent > >> * the OOM victim from depleting the memory reserves from the user > > > > Why don't you count tasks which share mm with the oom victim? > > Yes, this makes sense. But these kills are not logged thus counter will differs from logged events. > Also these tasks might live in different cgroups, so counting to mm owner isn't correct. > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > index 0e2c925e7826..9a95947a60ba 100644 > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -924,6 +924,8 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message) > > */ > > if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) > > continue; > > + count_vm_event(OOM_KILL); > > + count_memcg_event_mm(mm, OOM_KILL); > > do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true); > > } > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > Other than that looks good to me. > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a> >
| |