From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: void@manifault.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, tj@kernel.org,
Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:54:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220518155444.GB22503@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon>
Hi.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:54:16AM -0700, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
> Hm, what are our plans here? Are we going to fix it soon-ish, or there
> is still no agreement on how to proceed?
Here are some of my ideas in random order so far and comments:
0) mask memory.events:low
-> not a real fix
1) don't do SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX roundup
-> won't solve sudden lift of protection
2) instead of SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX over-reclaim, do same under-reclaim
-> same problem as 1)
3) update children_low_usage transactionally (after reclaim round is done)
- ???
4) don't recursively distribute residual protection in the same reclaim round
- ???
5) iterate siblings from highest to lowest protection
- not a solution
6) assign only >SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX of residuum
- need more info
I'm discouraged by possible complexity of 3) or 4), while 6) is what I'd
like to look more into.
HTH,
Michal
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: void-gq6j2QGBifHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org,
akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org,
kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:54:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220518155444.GB22503@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon>
Hi.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:54:16AM -0700, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hm, what are our plans here? Are we going to fix it soon-ish, or there
> is still no agreement on how to proceed?
Here are some of my ideas in random order so far and comments:
0) mask memory.events:low
-> not a real fix
1) don't do SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX roundup
-> won't solve sudden lift of protection
2) instead of SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX over-reclaim, do same under-reclaim
-> same problem as 1)
3) update children_low_usage transactionally (after reclaim round is done)
- ???
4) don't recursively distribute residual protection in the same reclaim round
- ???
5) iterate siblings from highest to lowest protection
- not a solution
6) assign only >SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX of residuum
- need more info
I'm discouraged by possible complexity of 3) or 4), while 6) is what I'd
like to look more into.
HTH,
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-23 15:56 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests David Vernet
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:04 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests: memcg: Fix compilation Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:54 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests: memcg: Remove protection from top level memcg Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
2022-05-18 15:40 [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný
2022-05-18 15:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný
2022-05-18 15:40 ` Michal Koutný
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=20220518155444.GB22503@blackbody.suse.cz \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rpalethorpe@suse.de \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.