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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B940AC433EF for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 44F366B0071; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3FFC26B0072; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2C6AA6B0073; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.28]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7336B0071 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EEC2127F for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:31 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79402841742.12.B6024CD Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755CAC0046 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA6CE1F37B; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1651068569; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qG8YIn3JE35g9Ne+urDhvDL4HbkCFi0xkUxB0TL6o3I=; b=FagGEF9266faGYZUHMQ7LBbOYJ6Buy1ny6xrAtyvD5345V/OyTl5AOYA8+hHWKvYXPZLMK rm8B6wrD7trua5Vddbu7bWthowMxia9peAgV7nb6c44uDpqNIvs26PjxF7HLsaI5dPeQW6 fItKqnIsFzukl0ZnrGQUDIED8UGpC6c= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D37C13A39; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id sNVVJZlOaWLLbQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:09:29 +0000 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:09:28 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: David Vernet Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com, Richard Palethorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() Message-ID: <20220427140928.GD9823@blackbody.suse.cz> References: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void@manifault.com> <20220423155619.3669555-3-void@manifault.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220423155619.3669555-3-void@manifault.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Stat-Signature: 3xtsrwui8shg9kgwx6y3t5ncc63ra9xx X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 755CAC0046 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=FagGEF92; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of mkoutny@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mkoutny@suse.com X-HE-Tag: 1651068570-884453 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: Hello David. On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 08:56:19AM -0700, David Vernet wrote: > This unfortunately broke the memcg tests, which asserts that a sibling > that experienced reclaim but had a memory.low value of 0, would not > observe any memory.low events. This patch updates test_memcg_low() to > account for the new behavior introduced by memory_recursiveprot. I think the test is correct, there should be no (not even recursive) protection in this particular case (when the remaining siblings consume all of parental protection). This should be fixed in the kernel (see also [1], no updates from me yet :-/) Michal [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322182248.29121-1-mkoutny@suse.com/