[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y03bQJcK4o4Po1v2@blackbook>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:46:24 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 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 Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 07:04:32AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.
It depends whether the there is a residual protection that the
memory.low=0 sibling can use (with memory_recursiveprot).
In the discussed LTP test, there should be no residual protection that
would justify the apparently misreported memory.low events. I.e. the
test is correct, the failure points to a subtle issue with distributing
residual protection among siblings.
Been there, (haven't) done that:
1) https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196298
2) https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220325103118.GC2828@blackbody.suse.cz/
HTH,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists