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 7D75FC433F5 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C71DD6B0071; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id BFA206B0073; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A4CF06B0074; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6066B0071 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3C812030E for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:04:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80009292552.08.AD6AE00 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com (mail-pl1-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2611C0036 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d24so13798551pls.4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=zqdmtqa8RE2RmAZ8iS4FrD0zV6hOcJCc7nr3ARbwfwo=; b=aobhvW0vOctc/TvPZkx2hfVLoinJiY0qIbvrUd1kge95Xuh9Z9WlI9w0VDygXONgEx SUHOQHTOXNeisew1HS/vWSWZA+IgCMmsEyc746xUu1JJM1zCI6OZyo7TnWVyWPqRr4ob uwOik+kHtFEScp6ufvKxNT6l1i5WWyjekaVk6wH03OuvEKHh7Ywm93IdoY23xT9Hiv9x shYjb1VDVYlnBZZOCjk9zqid65aA+upc7jlbeEXs0KbtmYudcuvpijrFv3/keO+W2NDB /dr6f9dIxCUVXZ+KYUqFai8jHP7V3q21jp3JHSleaWUqKqtagiDjH+27yTxq8oMCUZyR ucJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zqdmtqa8RE2RmAZ8iS4FrD0zV6hOcJCc7nr3ARbwfwo=; b=nlnKVsodHclPYprq0j3nFwlU+nzNVShuxiBdT8FCmeKAypxttzTtd4z9qJ0dK1c6tT Bvz2Tf67rQqqsAnx46qIcd7uRrhBv+Slsh6s9RBbp7DtUbLoJKScwMbe90LENSvR851x nPw7zM6NPokyyFPGrStL3GZ3oTpYff3GBRD0t6Q3zGGNJMKtm4zF/eQCSDsKOUBYFkDw FjBza+On6BRHrD8WbUsfWbpmI6THLYbiAkvgXhTHN4LVGiSJMavci2ih9xd+lnWDEopF ZRRc1on/UjFfa/F81SwmkWVQ/wqjohyt7CcsYDOc3oHRhSNfZTO2AAHm1f7o8+FT2Xv5 wxSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1jQ7ls3f/FwRVEswkUWvLCxl/bbKBBtgcd6YAVgrA2Jxi2EYyw pNwKVz1o63wQ/u799DQj8JY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7dElOPZoUH3HZbgCT8GVyl16joalp1GcedLIX281yzL796sfmwDcPZz19aAf9oFCNnqUcHEw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:11cd:b0:170:cde8:18b7 with SMTP id q13-20020a17090311cd00b00170cde818b7mr25261286plh.165.1665507874322; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x10-20020aa7940a000000b005636326fdbfsm4406789pfo.78.2022.10.11.10.04.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:04:32 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Down Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no protection needed Message-ID: References: <20221011143015.1152968-1-longman@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=aobhvW0v; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1665507875; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=y7XfB9eGjGoLboHM9ziUMSYANuIc84yeqnQuuhQfcJlWsJ3NNM7KCy2t9obuOrG4VpvrM0 iLn5/6K+C6fTb7Txo/g9+668hT4hbtNM102e+Sck5VgjqCbXgCQ1OS8iKjwIyGJJdYPpVg JVMoE+dTbcD+5BHcq4d/AiKuCQItYyY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1665507875; h=from:from:sender: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=zqdmtqa8RE2RmAZ8iS4FrD0zV6hOcJCc7nr3ARbwfwo=; b=OAORcz4shR46/FJ4ypfOhxal8MYLSdCOEGarVYIHQNeT5OwgzwkJkuBDTKBThx9hqvvwOU Z1NFhvVjl5ahlHuVxJiLrhuBZ7rZwMvGze1WT/1WFs0DT2BSo5UzR+QN1M9ilhKUCWkvKb yXNO+NZf9XUXejj+fvubX7UPz3ra8kw= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BA2611C0036 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=aobhvW0v; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: 91kcod31kqp54jaoajbzgbmjhds4ywxd X-HE-Tag: 1665507875-817638 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to > disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to > track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be > acceptable? 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. Thanks. -- tejun