[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b79d7f33-77b8-f200-5acd-1f3e5e37d00d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:14:59 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no
protection needed
On 10/11/22 13:04, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to
>> disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to
>> track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be
>> acceptable?
> Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup
> actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is
> to report the low events accordingly.
Yes, that is another possible way of looking at that problem. Will talk
to our QE people of doing that.
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists