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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B82BC433F5 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237226AbiDHO6H (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:58:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59668 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234894AbiDHO6D (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:58:03 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF7A4245AD; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id s11so10872299qtc.3; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RkQdhzMDs8tUm3hby//Hd4ev3pWtbOp3xvInpobyZS4=; b=lrvPVCsfGDkCGwWe+RqJphGmx2SiDaJ/okIVXFr8qJJlv4iQ0V5JkRw7+guRP5MaZw mSDnFKo0tUG8SHb/7TwFtprWvMIxR8/ouU0ZIgADO7mnBVZmIqpXtIXqhxOLaBkQG8Lf MXzCgZYkcqy/gIIW0fdXxdV/4AmvuSD1c0L9oQyKOoAgESKgyuvDqrC3xLPjHwcs6kSI 3gBvM9nBKrAH4VCbo0mws7lAb+6OwhEpHeKM2Q2ymtjm+DXvVzPOBR/r5P1dnjBUVIDL e97dBtSrb3+S3OvirDjNe8NRRCKOtTA52lXeSjeZj+y3RaXdT5vClJ5bg0/IR9EuISIP /wPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RkQdhzMDs8tUm3hby//Hd4ev3pWtbOp3xvInpobyZS4=; b=O7gH5Xj0TmKfCVall1VEpN/QtiviTucJ/P40JovyktPZb99UwvJS/L4NYFT/+plqdW 369QHxgYwVWKGNaOErtwIcUdVYeXRUfv3/wVURijUGJFv19Tb9gWSsEMIWDxZrxxLMQW yCZbPx27Wz0FYw9d7YinRtG58NgRn1gK5UVogphduRfdJFWxqBAeQYcU9JJudrWwD3uz l2C/VuLc1uHc3ce7ZaFMqDDUyDtjwjMIFENupekjXY/irKd9w7pu8hOZ/eZVb5h7KXXp umfp+aC3hWmNtQhub0NSPgK/s6M86lfmDxQ7MhaSS9LvkEdeuihYsqkTasTcnKczojOf 2Eiw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Q0/VpwAkJBNn0AuhV+eUIyvx/cARtyFVPeyEmxFvKs6nI943A Yl+a8UoRS5FMup6S7ZPNX588xQnBIb10pA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFh17N7vhka55fTsXg+zkueUtsdgIx6jfkxsIhhuLZCq7xKih5mgpoDbLVzGhrMIqUs0yCdg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7083:0:b0:2eb:b6b9:acec with SMTP id y3-20020ac87083000000b002ebb6b9acecmr16426324qto.465.1649429758703; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com ([2620:10d:c091:500::2:77ef]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x82-20020a376355000000b0069b971c58c1sm1411203qkb.60.2022.04.08.07.55.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:55:56 -0400 From: Dan Schatzberg To: Michal Hocko Cc: Yosry Ahmed , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Yu Zhao , Dave Hansen , Wei Xu , Greg Thelen , Chen Wandun , Vaibhav Jain , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , Tim Chen , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface Message-ID: References: <20220408045743.1432968-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20220408045743.1432968-2-yosryahmed@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:11:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Regarding "max" as a possible input. I am not really sure to be honest. > I can imagine that it could be legit to simply reclaim all the charges > (e.g. before removing the memcg) which should be achieveable by > reclaiming the reported consumption. Or what exactly should be the > semantic? Yeah, it just allows you to avoid reading memory.current to just reclaim everything if you can specify "max" - you're still protected by nretries to eventually bail out. Mostly, though I just feel like supporting "max" makes memory.reclaim semetric with a lot of the cgroup memory control files which tend to support "max". From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Schatzberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:55:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20220408045743.1432968-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20220408045743.1432968-2-yosryahmed@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=RkQdhzMDs8tUm3hby//Hd4ev3pWtbOp3xvInpobyZS4=; b=lrvPVCsfGDkCGwWe+RqJphGmx2SiDaJ/okIVXFr8qJJlv4iQ0V5JkRw7+guRP5MaZw mSDnFKo0tUG8SHb/7TwFtprWvMIxR8/ouU0ZIgADO7mnBVZmIqpXtIXqhxOLaBkQG8Lf MXzCgZYkcqy/gIIW0fdXxdV/4AmvuSD1c0L9oQyKOoAgESKgyuvDqrC3xLPjHwcs6kSI 3gBvM9nBKrAH4VCbo0mws7lAb+6OwhEpHeKM2Q2ymtjm+DXvVzPOBR/r5P1dnjBUVIDL e97dBtSrb3+S3OvirDjNe8NRRCKOtTA52lXeSjeZj+y3RaXdT5vClJ5bg0/IR9EuISIP /wPg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: Yosry Ahmed , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , David Rientjes , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Yu Zhao , Dave Hansen , Wei Xu , Greg Thelen , Chen Wandun , Vaibhav Jain , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , Tim Chen , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, l On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:11:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Regarding "max" as a possible input. I am not really sure to be honest. > I can imagine that it could be legit to simply reclaim all the charges > (e.g. before removing the memcg) which should be achieveable by > reclaiming the reported consumption. Or what exactly should be the > semantic? Yeah, it just allows you to avoid reading memory.current to just reclaim everything if you can specify "max" - you're still protected by nretries to eventually bail out. Mostly, though I just feel like supporting "max" makes memory.reclaim semetric with a lot of the cgroup memory control files which tend to support "max".