Re: [patch 08/12] mm: page_alloc: wait for OOM killer progress before retrying

[Johannes Weiner]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:58:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 25-03-15 02:17:12, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > There is not much point in rushing back to the freelists and burning
> > CPU cycles in direct reclaim when somebody else is in the process of
> > OOM killing, or right after issuing a kill ourselves, because it could
> > take some time for the OOM victim to release memory.
> 
> Yes this makes sense and it is better than what we have now. The
> question is how long we should wait. I can see you have gone with HZ.
> What is the value based on? Have your testing shown that the OOM victim
> manages to die within a second most of the time?
> 
> I do not want to get into which value is the best discussion but I would
> expect a larger value. Most OOM victims are not blocked so they would
> wake up soon. This is a safety net for those who are blocked and I do
> not think we have to expedite those rare cases and rather optimize for
> "regular" OOM situations. How about 10-30s?

Yup, I agree with that reasoning.  We can certainly go higher than HZ.

However, we should probably try to stay within the thresholds of any
lock/hang detection watchdogs, which on a higher level includes the
user itself, who might get confused if the machine hangs for 30s.

As I replied to Vlastimil, once the OOM victim hangs for several
seconds without a deadlock, failing the allocation wouldn't seem
entirely unreasonable, either.

But yes, something like 5-10s would still sound good to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/