Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg, oom: unmark under_oom after the oom killer is done

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:59:25 +0800 Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2023/10/3 15:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 28-09-23 11:03:23, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> for example, we want to run processes in the group but those parametes related to 
> >>>> memory allocation is hard to decide, so use the notifications to inform us that we
> >>>> need to adjust the paramters automatically and we don't need to create the new processes
> >>>> manually.
> >>>
> >>> I do understand that but OOM is just way too late to tune anything
> >>> upon. Cgroup v2 has a notion of high limit which can throttle memory
> >>> allocations way before the hard limit is set and this along with PSI
> >>> metrics could give you a much better insight on the memory pressure
> >>> in a memcg.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thank you for your suggestion. We will try to use memory.high instead.
> > 
> > OK, is the patch still required? 
> Yes
> As I've said I am not strongly opposed,

I'm confused.  You (Haifeng Xu) are looking at using memory.high for
your requirement, yet you believe that this patch is still required? 
This seems contradictory.

Oh well.  I think I'll drop this patch for now.  If you believe that
kernel changes are still required, please propose something for
6.7-rcX.