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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780A3C32750 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267492182B for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:11:14 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 267492182B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sina.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AEEBF6B0006; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AA04E6B0008; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:11:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9DC166B000A; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:11:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-pg1-f200.google.com (mail-pg1-f200.google.com [209.85.215.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676DC6B0006 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f200.google.com with SMTP id h3so47309564pgc.19 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 05:11:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:thread-topic :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WaJYBwV0sp0Wd+zWm5bMV+NEQOJbB9hL4mapEey/vCY=; b=bO3eisrPIeMbGmXEu36/tfLbvzO0zJ7tT/Pyar0cYx8ORiZr6NqssDFdiHwNlHQukK MfLKCoKjiKGkEgRLqyyMJYlVDZ2irfaSw5jBTnK0ItObD0BPWg/3QrwcjNdUNA05/xvx sPQAPfFHSJkNd1neoqzY2wcvpW2gxLo09Pp/uvmKEqOmQiztQIWLq4j+s43Wvrqzq2Ek f8vFd2xDUdQENWAgyDrZT/cmOeqHjqYoBhqkzlGCT0mX8hzw51Q876gUeGmMHOox7e0h nZtJVCnhyGZEEi3Oep2jiZ2oORATFbJEZZn5WVM00x818pCtsO1+vtSn+vKgRVd/mWpS zFNw== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 202.108.3.164 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgbbSv2sXKhRQeXBcjs+jXK0hiSHHVIyGEp16wxDcYgT9MNkuE GXpvpr/kFws08sc1ButQsch7jozti4axlyaCVhLFkV+Mm138+ExXvh/MPX9eYFQs6TFFIn4katL v0DqUesb7PJg7ODZGldtHX4LPqRp0jbwBG2ltEv+Npxh4M2X16U7an25pX+Yl2nZsKQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8392:: with SMTP id u18mr59765710pfm.72.1564747873106; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 05:11:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyR8CYBv6jMOd6SShyOQWavepRrMsAHDJp9QTbNEMSfAzg0/gHm5/KFEUFVAh/FQrAdKS/D X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8392:: with SMTP id u18mr59765661pfm.72.1564747872438; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 05:11:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564747872; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ztDrGvg/UnOmv8x5qPkKDOCSeGOt6FQNg5cZ/wgBu9VBWKJjO4m2bsNYGOhTjEbYP0 aERs7z0w0kRsg2OghY6qfEs6Vk7uLVtUL4FW/YGBlXS532QrSGv0abztLow5mJXPPLyZ eotDxyZiiixTVqsIBPlEzlHKfJ+ShfCzK0vZXbnGl1h9rLV+Tv2zlA2w88Od4IHKm8oC KkUA4Zp4YNNorvy3wfEx206QVQbhe4ItoY03BROgB72zrAPBTYsVQdr8hmM2iYTCm8U8 1eddQBSVeQZdligihVM6pwNQz1rDzz7ae6xKedyTa07dTYO1NSE1Y9UNDZYEtz3sEkzh 4G/w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:thread-topic:mime-version:message-id:date :subject:cc:to:from; bh=WaJYBwV0sp0Wd+zWm5bMV+NEQOJbB9hL4mapEey/vCY=; b=RJHJSHWeNPWRiNTSGReiM/oJIhCZnEwPUzXDSyRvkKZDAnuX6XRB1hdRjqQUa3YaYi 5jyP2lTo5VaubBU6XIkkgKsLJjMPcrdb52FkPgdXG5wOop6JqjQYTNCHE4ATHiXzUwsB sBUKjfeuImZWvDhj89LhHFkQi4KStQ4gMOwKsbaa+gjf8MZOYKbTJVtvR5lfzeGAF+h5 uyHbu9XZtlQpgx/vlIjhSMtGFwJ45QR/N/nH57dptGwQTOc43Q8dtlW6uM7hpRIUtrqN dxOX1YA9RnZ2FQ1kMJv81bagalKLzfGWWrZC+AVQCEooo/Cmb7WVHC3Wyhzdg/40SNuu 5Ikw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 202.108.3.164 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com Received: from mail3-164.sinamail.sina.com.cn (mail3-164.sinamail.sina.com.cn. [202.108.3.164]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id h32si36273231pld.402.2019.08.02.05.11.11 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 05:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 202.108.3.164 as permitted sender) client-ip=202.108.3.164; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 202.108.3.164 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain)([124.64.0.239]) by sina.com with ESMTP id 5D44285C00004AC2; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:11:10 +0800 (CST) X-Sender: hdanton@sina.com X-Auth-ID: hdanton@sina.com X-SMAIL-MID: 56617130409264 From: Hillf Danton To: Michal Hocko Cc: Masoud Sharbiani , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "vdavydov.dev@gmail.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Greg KH Subject: Re: Possible mem cgroup bug in kernels between 4.18.0 and 5.3-rc1. Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:10:58 +0800 Message-Id: <20190802121059.13192-1-hdanton@sina.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Thread-Topic: Re: Possible mem cgroup bug in kernels between 4.18.0 and 5.3-rc1. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:18:40 +0800 Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Hillf, your email client or workflow mangles emails. In this case you > are seem to be reusing the message id from the email you are replying to > which confuses my email client to assume your email is a duplicate.] [Hi Michal, I sent the previous mail with Message-id: <7EE30F16-A90B-47DC-A065-3C21881CD1CC@apple.com> using git send-email after quitting vi. That tag is removed from this message and get me informed if it makes your mail client happy.] > > Huh, what? You are effectively saying that we should fail the charge > when the requested nr_pages would fit in. This doesn't make much sense > to me. What are you trying to achive here? The report looks like the result of a tight loop. I want to break it and make the end result of do_page_fault unsuccessful if nr_retries rounds of page reclaiming fail to get work done. What made me a bit over stretched is how to determine if the chargee is a memhog in memcg's vocabulary. What I prefer here is that do_page_fault succeeds, even if the chargee exhausts its memory quota/budget granted, as long as more than nr_pages can be reclaimed _within_ nr_retries rounds. IOW the deadline for memhog is nr_retries, and no more. Thanks Hillf