lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] oom: choose a more suitable process to kill while all processes are not killable
[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/<pid>/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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-20 12:38    [W:0.033 / U:63.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site