[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190530065111.GC6703@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 08:51:11 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude
protection
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?
> (Of course, it's possible we race with going within protection thresholds
> again, but this patch doesn't make that any better or worse than the
> previous situation.)
Yeah.
With the above clarified. The code the resulting code is much easier to
follow and the overal logic makes sense to me.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists