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 815D3C433FE for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E52D96B0071; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E01866B0073; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:03:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CA3616B0074; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:03:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.28]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E226B0071 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 21:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CA7208DC for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:03:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79408118916.03.3C68749 Received: from mail-qv1-f42.google.com (mail-qv1-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F77E140055 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qv1-f42.google.com with SMTP id kj18so4419894qvb.6 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5W/PHVbvpSagVt8G3Hj3eW0IY7pmUgdHHakH22/epB8=; b=Y3QsZqdksZlUkSn6mNcpe0ItJ80Gj4tYIpN5bZ7553V1pG/CTzZUyHA0yP8MV2Ib96 8ax3htWEoVRgiSVZIarxRJw8MvTQeF65THSVemnJ58GDpEdBq25S/F452l1+P/PETYpj Xh150Q0tpDs/132gbOx4w+yq4QRu5KbvqwkfE8iB7k0w4ResXXknzsN2/0YSqhO/HeDq wz9tejdH6cLjWwrMgmUkWQ3D941zkGhJRECHkCTZs+x17ES7Hnlq/BVNw5NXREyrFByH +HaJFLVhwZWxxbxgAvzH92vnGq5/tmbNN6EvLCnd25WRfKeNPb3V9mF93prM3cwjSuc/ sz4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315WgwOHuzxkOxvsJe+xXZhSf8+hVjnstrsJADbXBUhAUiNj+/H veiIbRYOIz5cStZut445ugY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycaAU4Fqd8i5oSVNbuNnJ/LKsV/SNu6Bwc8rsaXssptvFPXU9aCZhBc7ty0EIfRzyIKyvx3g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f6d:b0:446:4c8b:b57d with SMTP id iy13-20020a0562140f6d00b004464c8bb57dmr26267591qvb.104.1651194217338; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dev0025.ash9.facebook.com (fwdproxy-ash-016.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:20ff:10::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i19-20020a05620a249300b0069f805534d3sm814533qkn.89.2022.04.28.18.03.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:03:33 -0700 From: David Vernet To: Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com, Richard Palethorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() Message-ID: <20220429010333.5rt2jwpiumnbuapf@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com> References: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void@manifault.com> <20220423155619.3669555-3-void@manifault.com> <20220427140928.GD9823@blackbody.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220427140928.GD9823@blackbody.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20211029 X-Stat-Signature: pofjr4b8njm84pja5ut6f9jcztodaqca Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of dcvernet@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dcvernet@gmail.com; dmarc=none X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3F77E140055 X-HE-Tag: 1651194214-855971 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: Hi Michal, On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 04:09:28PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > Hello David. > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 08:56:19AM -0700, David Vernet wrote: > > This unfortunately broke the memcg tests, which asserts that a sibling > > that experienced reclaim but had a memory.low value of 0, would not > > observe any memory.low events. This patch updates test_memcg_low() to > > account for the new behavior introduced by memory_recursiveprot. > > I think the test is correct, there should be no (not even recursive) > protection in this particular case (when the remaining siblings consume > all of parental protection). > > This should be fixed in the kernel (see also [1], no updates from me yet > :-/) > > Michal > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322182248.29121-1-mkoutny@suse.com/ > I see, thanks for sharing that context. I think I see your point about the implementation of the reclaim mechanism potentially overcounting, but my interpretation of the rest of that discussion with Roman is that we haven't yet decided whether we don't want to propagate memory.low events from children cgroups with memory.low == 0. Or at the very least, some more justification was requested on why not counting such events was prudent. Would you be ok with merging this patch so that the cgroup selftests can pass again based on the current behavior of the kernel, and we can then revert the changes to test_memcg_low() later on if and when we decide that we don't want to propagate memory.low events for memory.low == 0 children? Thanks, David