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 32524C433EF for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 999AB6B0071; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 947CE6B0073; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8382B6B0074; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769086B0071 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C8B16067D for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:50:06 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79708216812.29.9A48760 Received: from mail-pf1-f176.google.com (mail-pf1-f176.google.com [209.85.210.176]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29F51A0087 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f176.google.com with SMTP id 70so17141493pfx.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:50:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DPK1xSGNueZDg4ifFUEI8PtrdzUASZ9LzW78x/FVmdA=; b=o1lu30MhEHLv+1z/UwxTaic3Ke1o1strn9J68S6fTgqRNYxf94G2Cot76fFiDQbdii 0se9bQGwJdlYVgwZjOP56cixjvOQRJMwNcggtcG3LIkguFvbfBZmYbT80Jaa6+W6I5Ow v+QM9AChW0NqOSSf+3+sisR3WOy7akkF6MbWoBlW9Mx2jqVW5DFmxlzWePrcQwX7s5xG AHNkzva6mCpi8uXZTnnRLzLO5FR1vUBytyLiwtw0iJTDerJX5Mgl2XXaNTqet7KzwaRW cQ9yxOnkk7OBkoutgMSNYB0dPosQxch8Y4Kq4iNTdQtEW4BTwXMkhRasJSjsGu1InOzr Wp2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DPK1xSGNueZDg4ifFUEI8PtrdzUASZ9LzW78x/FVmdA=; b=P3x+Sb+iJAn+OTJMEXAqyGzFTavcdAFeAFnz7qfegrqMFioUcN7VWnQMMFV+PPcO9u 9gAa+/I9n4DKL7jp4p6WmghaEXEb9F9S/Ldi4ZHTNas1sz23eJ7QDZaLYEQtKE6+Vjcw Md+Jahq0jfTXMwCQbXc1y5svBTdA94AVFASwAzubg49Je+UXnS8IRqDDigWKGNyJr6o3 ZFW0P67GiwP4GN+lIi9DCfKEyCN6e8TXedpR8WELKomK5oLGPtUCFBxup4hDklVh+LMd eITJXAC2US6W0+IypdNNKrz2sE7oRoSLScWD62Ex1vD+F8wfSHC0mPrZaGsX1023inuy PTsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+pQPTV+iQZFhDPBhtGX5RkqSiPf7roLthY5PcVwhOBl6cqM/ug Cjz7VMrS3/fw3pKAl86euSQSFUWee3k8XTX4xhFcoA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vn1UfRAhqTF02gy4Fa67sB/TV9LWC+MWq4qk7Ub3qiFTRlQbSTFwOECLKyOfrPgQJTG8a4S3GrI7h0jUnZido= X-Received: by 2002:a63:c106:0:b0:419:b303:2343 with SMTP id w6-20020a63c106000000b00419b3032343mr28798192pgf.166.1658339404600; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220714064918.2576464-1-yosryahmed@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:49:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: vmpressure: don't count proactive reclaim in vmpressure To: Michal Hocko Cc: Yosry Ahmed , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Vlastimil Babka , David Hildenbrand , Miaohe Lin , NeilBrown , Alistair Popple , Suren Baghdasaryan , Peter Xu , LKML , Cgroups , Linux MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=o1lu30Mh; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.210.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1658339405; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=DPK1xSGNueZDg4ifFUEI8PtrdzUASZ9LzW78x/FVmdA=; b=5dbUR0jcUZzv7IW7DV5+jyk3niyCdNG4o2P7cSpAivTPECHTY7WvDR/9NKSeqTGZAR4Kjc 6uu9XNx6ff9WDeP3cKjdzQHTLKdqdHYO0sjxCjELn1C3w5t/tsHx/OByVrzumSIs2W4Sq6 R/AInuCHEW5gFar2BMziYHeslS8F+PU= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1658339405; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=QjEv1KH9zV4h2WB/ihe81j0VHpufltXdGEjEWS9AsbzEIpMdZZx6TgGQBrbPQnyg6U/7tv PP6k4j2FYMzSB1VZAiSTmb3UPaxpv4YFJi7dCE0rhNHpOOFoaD/10Ome0CSYxJqvKJscZJ XloiNzsczzQ4pCtX9KQVgWbMqMzaCMo= X-Stat-Signature: 75nx1t9y9nzubhhbow5monesbwa3irp5 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C29F51A0087 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=o1lu30Mh; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.210.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1658339405-133793 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 Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:24 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > I think what we are missing here is > - explain that this doesn't have any effect on existing users of > vmpressure user interface because that is cgroup v1 and memory.reclaim > is v2 feature. This is a trivial statement but quite useful for future > readers of this commit > - explain the effect on the networking layer and typical usecases > memory.reclaim is used for currently and ideally document that. I agree with the above two points (Yosry, please address those) but the following third point is orthogonal and we don't really need to have an answer for this patch to be accepted. > - how are we going to deal with users who would really want to use > memory.reclaim interface as a replacement for existing hard/high > memory reclaim? Is that even something that the interface is intended > for? I do agree that this question is important. Nowadays I am looking at this from a different perspective and use-case. More concretely how (and why) to replace vmpressure based network throttling for cgroup v2. I will start a separate thread for that discussion.