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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=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 66997C3A5A6 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4165522CBB for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4165522CBB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C47C66B000D; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BF89D6B000E; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:53:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B34FC6B0010; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:53:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0099.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.99]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914B06B000D for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4328463FA for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75868349970.06.lunch97_b65ae455c06 X-HE-Tag: lunch97_b65ae455c06 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2046 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F707AC45; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:53:22 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Hillf Danton Cc: Yafang Shao , Adric Blake , Andrew Morton , Kirill Tkhai , Johannes Weiner , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , Mel Gorman , Linux MM , LKML Subject: Re: WARNINGs in set_task_reclaim_state with memory cgroupandfullmemory usage Message-ID: <20190827135322.GG7538@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190824130516.2540-1-hdanton@sina.com> <20190827132931.848986B0008@kanga.kvack.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190827132931.848986B0008@kanga.kvack.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 27-08-19 21:29:24, Hillf Danton wrote: > > >> No preference seems in either way except for retaining > >> nr_to_reclaim == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX and target_mem_cgroup == memcg. > > > > Setting target_mem_cgroup here may be a very subtle change for > > subsequent processing. > > Regarding retraining nr_to_reclaim == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, it may not > > proper for direct reclaim, that may cause some stall if we iterate all > > memcgs here. > > Mind posting a RFC to collect thoughts? I hope I have explained why this is not desirable http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190827120335.GA7538@dhcp22.suse.cz -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs