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 E1813C2D0C8 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFB024679 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AFFB024679 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 44E388E005A; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3FE1B8E0040; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:56:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2ECED8E005A; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:56:08 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0240.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.240]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1597E8E0040 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C3CCB181AEF07 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:56:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76274479974.20.rat80_6fab652cd7b2e X-HE-Tag: rat80_6fab652cd7b2e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2889 Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com [209.85.128.67]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:56:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f129so2819837wmf.2 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:56:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=tBfsCMjh1ETu4mPTqgM5m4FYVkLnpEWQJDTEOuEBWRw=; b=fb4LwCba5i+OG8guC5Ag/svr1qyJWpoUA22olx7ntfgbwkgq2BEhGAHRtysE9IRhbR WEGVvPQ5qVd5z3podGOvJfOay9vrC0SsRcezkNV/EGeHL9elS64pc8Z4ihlNPxzdrtuW YRoNqURCSwGLMNfINL/vBr2b6FCyA//iDt/xzzY+Af+eGThIhwrdOioB8a0mSVuOagUZ 6uvgyPAKCDoXOOIafefKtNfzJBYrUDBgGQ9I2qSauNuvb4COGoTT+Xo7f/eL6EqirNJN x1L+yYp2soB32zqOgNBsyP6G4k144SYHgMTUN2RBsAQtY8VZLZRXN/wIkRH1Rzz+BPai 3wAw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5ra5JaXYkNjMqRLMUiYjGX/KTBDqh1r9lVJBFmE9MhOhFKEf/ pCJMz2c9K4PkcTNoMBwCmwc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYFTVfGZu2J7p0OrIg09Dwz5eFI6PsMuysdoIJMBZ0kOkQ1SsHnOZSXe51f6W7R63viLe3SA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c19a:: with SMTP id y26mr5016121wmi.152.1576583766141; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm2819398wmc.27.2019.12.17.03.56.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:56:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:56:03 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yafang Shao Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] memcg, inode: protect page cache from freeing inode Message-ID: <20191217115603.GA10016@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1576582159-5198-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1576582159-5198-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.026858, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 17-12-19 06:29:15, Yafang Shao wrote: > On my server there're some running MEMCGs protected by memory.{min, low}, > but I found the usage of these MEMCGs abruptly became very small, which > were far less than the protect limit. It confused me and finally I > found that was because of inode stealing. What do you mean by this exactly. Are those inodes reclaimed by the regular memory reclaim or by other means? Because shrink_node does exclude shrinking slab for protected memcgs. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs