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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 85DA7C04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CADB26454 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:28:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559284138; bh=exq5qae6vVQw+j3gnAu5ggvVu0nRxcCNdyrPyjO7bM0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=OG1M3nGKPxBPyeAsrGG89GIiCvZA91SRwNy2kxgTpjoGjzSR0Oqc9qYT9rTG/QIR1 WM2i1VsAMgLMX2sERmgb0cR6aInrtoLkLOgj8KZaSFzuAOu5PNuuHCNaZVAB6t8i5C J2OlnmOLU6sJ1dz2VF5y3NkWK5SpMLWixtp04akU= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726774AbfEaG25 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 02:28:57 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59148 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725955AbfEaG25 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 May 2019 02:28:57 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF82AF8A; Fri, 31 May 2019 06:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 08:28:54 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Chris Down Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , Dennis Zhou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude protection Message-ID: <20190531062854.GG6896@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190228213050.GA28211@chrisdown.name> <20190322160307.GA3316@chrisdown.name> <20190530061221.GA6703@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190530064453.GA110128@chrisdown.name> <20190530065111.GC6703@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190530205210.GA165912@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190530205210.GA165912@chrisdown.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 30-05-19 13:52:10, Chris Down wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > On Wed 29-05-19 23:44:53, Chris Down wrote: > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong but the new > > > > calculation actually means that we always allow to scan even min > > > > protected memcgs right? > > > > > > We check if the memcg is min protected as a precondition for coming into > > > this function at all, so this generally isn't possible. See the > > > mem_cgroup_protected MEMCG_PROT_MIN check in shrink_node. > > > > OK, that is the part I was missing, I got confused by checking the min > > limit as well here. Thanks for the clarification. A comment would be > > handy or do we really need to consider min at all? > > You mean as part of the reclaim pressure calculation? Yeah, we still need > it, because we might only set memory.min, but not set memory.low. But then the memcg will get excluded as well right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs