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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 7C5CAC34022 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B2720801 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="RhyLmMMr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726171AbgBRCJn (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:43 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:40099 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726091AbgBRCJn (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:43 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id x1so9112849iop.7 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:09:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fM30C4hYe4O7W/0krOqJPNu1c/FGOvvSlzloCbaa9eo=; b=RhyLmMMrZpAnw7Zn/q8OV364RGL/Y2BtQcSmXyY3VuyY27YSj77tKY1IiAaM6PJ4iM UUlBG0gCLB8R0zxv5JYUK1TiO5veeVi9QEtrmxFvP+5rJk9Vzgz34EmFb+PHAZ4AGIj2 e4FPU98V8AkcV/yO2bxFAo7os/d+M1r/UNaN8ZOl97R/LqGjeF8O3diM9hItPu8iq8n2 KfFKtJiMc6Qvhp5xJ08NVeGL4XcMU8vZ1HsuBqWWHKWUvC1HOamPXi8adB5gRNlL2fgm OyBoqCKv9zwwBtP1/cp7a7wCEQUowe33y74+pV81Ji4HpcxtVl0NsRWCXlUCZ7RWo1fs xtsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fM30C4hYe4O7W/0krOqJPNu1c/FGOvvSlzloCbaa9eo=; b=C+jhPGEB6qzQWAVvaRHZVE0d6olAHmsNvaOpEna1bJYyLlAFCQprotva/ysyXonGn/ q54cYcehbYbbaCh343UKop0xnecIoZgFS+MZ3C8tTYsRPwa+8ORnt0AR78/VFvcS2bns JYkNOiHaRkI9hd2A43u3swTO2TWAuIlcg1W6HLVleOJVvvDg6bnsjrC2JzCSDAZWnfTW A4w3cVFCpP19W3RMe1tzh50RHSZu1DKrjULk2FhRy7VrQc1lWgwP8DcmUiFnCSz3MOL1 rzeEWPx95qU1suGAvRr/1n4Ob5mkg+udQvH/Wy/U5t2TGPPaWCWlBL+NF3yPYWvYLxnE bTFw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+57fnFhs9Jb8As1TC3dj0ioxWpY7gd4WSVyjogrTaeo4gmz1X MMmaCFSPjsYujDbEW3ukH37FSywx0YmSymU5rtw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyy46ljQyc48W5bmQRGK2iak1CCvCtiIBcH3RGDp7Ap3mW6t41PnBBiOPQwOhvUhsFjaDrtIhyxCnfqqp6fUfg= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5503:: with SMTP id j3mr13912448iob.142.1581991782674; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:09:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200216145249.6900-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20200217092459.GG31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217132443.GM31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217140430.GO31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217143529.GQ31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217151417.GS31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200217151417.GS31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Yafang Shao Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:09:06 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm, memcg: reset memcg's memory.{min, low} for reclaiming itself To: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Chris Down , Linux MM , stable@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:14 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > > kswapd > > > > > > | > > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > > | > > > > > > exit > > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > > | > > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > > | > > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. > > Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so > having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > Why is it having an effective emin 0 if memory.max > memory.min ? Note that effective emin is only set in function mem_cgroup_protected(), so if we don't set it explicitly to 0 then it can't be 0. Besides mem_cgroup_protected(), the effective emin also take effect in the function mem_cgroup_protection(), but in this function it only use the existed memory.emin rather than verifying memory.max > memory.min. So the real issue is in mem_cgroup_protection(), because the value it is using may be an old value. > > If A is the root of the memcg reclaimer, then the memcg protection > > should not prevent it from relcaiming the page cache pages of itself. > > That is why the if statement if (memcg == root) exists. > > I suspect you misinterpret the code or your example is incomplete. > Please have a look at the patch I have referred to earlier. Johannes > explicitly sets effective values to their native ones > if (parent == root) { > memcg->memory.emin = memcg->memory.min; > memcg->memory.elow = memcg->memory.low; > goto out; > } > > and this matches my understanding. I haven't read Johannes's patch carefully, but take a first glance I don't think it can fix this issue. -- Yafang Shao DiDi 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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 3F973C34031 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0CB20801 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="RhyLmMMr" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EA0CB20801 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 76A546B0003; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 71C066B0006; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:44 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6097A6B0007; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:44 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0170.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4714E6B0003 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:09:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE494181AEF1E for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76501616646.08.spoon39_7206f07578063 X-HE-Tag: spoon39_7206f07578063 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 9549 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com (mail-io1-f67.google.com [209.85.166.67]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 02:09:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id i11so7562109ioi.12 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:09:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fM30C4hYe4O7W/0krOqJPNu1c/FGOvvSlzloCbaa9eo=; b=RhyLmMMrZpAnw7Zn/q8OV364RGL/Y2BtQcSmXyY3VuyY27YSj77tKY1IiAaM6PJ4iM UUlBG0gCLB8R0zxv5JYUK1TiO5veeVi9QEtrmxFvP+5rJk9Vzgz34EmFb+PHAZ4AGIj2 e4FPU98V8AkcV/yO2bxFAo7os/d+M1r/UNaN8ZOl97R/LqGjeF8O3diM9hItPu8iq8n2 KfFKtJiMc6Qvhp5xJ08NVeGL4XcMU8vZ1HsuBqWWHKWUvC1HOamPXi8adB5gRNlL2fgm OyBoqCKv9zwwBtP1/cp7a7wCEQUowe33y74+pV81Ji4HpcxtVl0NsRWCXlUCZ7RWo1fs xtsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fM30C4hYe4O7W/0krOqJPNu1c/FGOvvSlzloCbaa9eo=; b=aMqXcK5ccRzDCI4c/Ie5k54D7OiK2HQOOyYltMZtxzeGOwzfZjjhI3OMUBX54TDqNi fGT3MrGflhbtH/WlF4W+RhoJU/05fYU2EyyoaFQjRdj7GmGpeFgCS7VbfUut0bgF/upf q03uhdbESLKV8T9e9WIhsuI0x3UYeMkRN3WcI1WgjdYreYwidA9ay0/BmD6XMTyoCkuI zpgcNeWNqr4+A0ZXakgMGaXS4onoqbaTI17M/TOSJ8zqT3gJbkhqNHh0S4WcrohcOCyh aCCcBUt6DmKw0snbouqmMQZ9gPEKBltPR+dpPQmNo7agi6RJyjNTYupoCyUGzo8Nfvpa GCsA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXTv6/7SSbhqcaGrlpCSl1aF6E6ilzbLsO3gvPpqPTamAP+d/4H oPpd7MavphaDHrV5bJ7jKwZa3/7fXt+EAPp7I+Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyy46ljQyc48W5bmQRGK2iak1CCvCtiIBcH3RGDp7Ap3mW6t41PnBBiOPQwOhvUhsFjaDrtIhyxCnfqqp6fUfg= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5503:: with SMTP id j3mr13912448iob.142.1581991782674; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:09:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200216145249.6900-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20200217092459.GG31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217132443.GM31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217140430.GO31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217143529.GQ31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200217151417.GS31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20200217151417.GS31531@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Yafang Shao Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:09:06 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm, memcg: reset memcg's memory.{min, low} for reclaiming itself To: Michal Hocko Cc: Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Chris Down , Linux MM , stable@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000115, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:14 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:40:22, Yafang Shao wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:35 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 22:28:38, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:51:23, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon 17-02-20 21:08:12, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 16-02-20 09:52:49, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > memory.{emin, elow} are set in mem_cgroup_protected(), and the values of > > > > > > > > > > them won't be changed until next recalculation in this function. After > > > > > > > > > > either or both of them are set, the next reclaimer to relcaim this memcg > > > > > > > > > > may be a different reclaimer, e.g. this memcg is also the root memcg of > > > > > > > > > > the new reclaimer, and then in mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() > > > > > > > > > > the old values of them will be used to calculate scan count, that is not > > > > > > > > > > proper. We should reset them to zero in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's an example of this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > root_mem_cgroup > > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > A memory.max=1024M memory.min=512M memory.current=800M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once kswapd is waked up, it will try to scan all MEMCGs, including > > > > > > > > > > this A, and it will assign memory.emin of A with 512M. > > > > > > > > > > After that, A may reach its hard limit(memory.max), and then it will > > > > > > > > > > do memcg reclaim. Because A is the root of this reclaimer, so it will > > > > > > > > > > not calculate its memory.emin. So the memory.emin is the old value > > > > > > > > > > 512M, and then this old value will be used in > > > > > > > > > > mem_cgroup_protection() in get_scan_count() to get the scan count. > > > > > > > > > > That is not proper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document user visible effects of this patch. What does it mean > > > > > > > > > that this is not proper behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the memcg reclaim, if the target memcg is the root of the reclaimer, > > > > > > > > the reclaimer should scan this memcg's all page cache pages in the LRU, > > > > > > > > but now as the old memcg.{emin, elow} value are still there, it will get > > > > > > > > a wrong protection value, > > > > > > > > and the reclaimer can't reclaim the page cache pages protected by this > > > > > > > > wrong protection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you be more specific please. Your example above says that emin is > > > > > > > not going to be recalculated and stays at 512M even for a potential max > > > > > > > limit reclaim. The min limit is still 512M so why is this value wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the relcaimers are changed or the root the relcaimer is changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kswapd begins to relcaim memcg-A. > > > > > > kswapd > > > > > > | > > > > > > calculate the {emin, elow} for memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > stores {emin, elow} in memory.{emin, elow} of memcg-A > > > > > > | > > > > > > This memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (See get_scan_count->mem_cgroup_protection) > > > > > > | > > > > > > exit > > > > > > (And it won't relcaim memcg-A for a long time) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then memcg relcaimer is woke up (reached the hard limit of memcg-A), > > > > > > and the root of this new reclaimer is memcg-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > This memcg relcaimer begins to reclaim memcg-A. > > > > > > memcg relcaimer > > > > > > | > > > > > > As the root of the relcaimer is memcg-A, it won't calculate emin, elow > > > > > > for memcg-A. > > > > > > (See if (memcg == root) in mem_cgroup_protected()) > > > > > > | > > > > > > The old memory.{emin, elow} will protect the page cache pages in memcg-A > > > > > > (SO WE SHOULD CLEAR THE OLD VALUE) > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but I still do not follow. Could you focus on _why_ the old > > > > > value is no longer valid? > > > > > > > > Because for the new reclaimer the memory.{emin, elow} should be 0. > > > > The old value may be not 0, but it was thought as 0 in the if > > > > statement (if (memcg == root)). > > > > > > Why should it be 0 when the A.min is still 512MB? > > > > Because A's hard limit is reached and A is the root of memcg relcaimer. > > Confused. But your examples suggests that memory.max > memory.min so > having an effective emin 0 or not doesn't make any difference. > Why is it having an effective emin 0 if memory.max > memory.min ? Note that effective emin is only set in function mem_cgroup_protected(), so if we don't set it explicitly to 0 then it can't be 0. Besides mem_cgroup_protected(), the effective emin also take effect in the function mem_cgroup_protection(), but in this function it only use the existed memory.emin rather than verifying memory.max > memory.min. So the real issue is in mem_cgroup_protection(), because the value it is using may be an old value. > > If A is the root of the memcg reclaimer, then the memcg protection > > should not prevent it from relcaiming the page cache pages of itself. > > That is why the if statement if (memcg == root) exists. > > I suspect you misinterpret the code or your example is incomplete. > Please have a look at the patch I have referred to earlier. Johannes > explicitly sets effective values to their native ones > if (parent == root) { > memcg->memory.emin = memcg->memory.min; > memcg->memory.elow = memcg->memory.low; > goto out; > } > > and this matches my understanding. I haven't read Johannes's patch carefully, but take a first glance I don't think it can fix this issue. -- Yafang Shao DiDi