[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <h64z4wl6mw3qxfwmqsvlddsie62ehkoag47lm2in3nda7dhloq@rjxpkggawqem>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:11:16 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] selftests: memcg: Allow low event with no
memory.low and memory_recursiveprot on
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> I was referring to the suggestion that the setting of memory_recursiveprot
> mount option has a material impact of the child 2 test result. Roman
> probably didn't have memory_recursiveprot set when developing this selftest.
The patch in its v7 form is effectively a revert of
1d09069f5313f ("selftests: memcg: expect no low events in unprotected sibling")
i.e. this would be going in circles (that commit is also a revert) hence
I suggested to exempt looking at memory.events:low entirely with
memory_recursiveprot (and check for 0 when !memory_recursiveprot) --
which is something new (and hopefully universally better :-)
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists