From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no protection needed
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:46:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y03bQJcK4o4Po1v2@blackbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y0WiIDmPPXYZuHpX@slm.duckdns.org>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 07:04:32AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup
> actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is
> to report the low events accordingly.
It depends whether the there is a residual protection that the
memory.low=0 sibling can use (with memory_recursiveprot).
In the discussed LTP test, there should be no residual protection that
would justify the apparently misreported memory.low events. I.e. the
test is correct, the failure points to a subtle issue with distributing
residual protection among siblings.
Been there, (haven't) done that:
1) https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196298
2) https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220325103118.GC2828@blackbody.suse.cz/
HTH,
Michal
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-17 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-11 14:30 Waiman Long
2022-10-11 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2022-10-11 17:00 ` Waiman Long
2022-10-11 17:04 ` Tejun Heo
2022-10-11 17:14 ` Waiman Long
2022-10-11 19:01 ` Michal Hocko
2022-10-17 22:46 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y03bQJcK4o4Po1v2@blackbook \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox