From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 411FD27456 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743879131; cv=none; b=ZcCE6046NvD3pcwC7oGlpbH5uMicMDc5jXb/wD1cGhkW+U11C397jflNUGeDEu9NqN8xMQKWhIO3D7f8WwOsPUkfnUeautYaLN5Tuu2bL0yVn46IL6GKvyU+dXtA7FmR19feMAdUqZIqJhFpiiy55MPoj5IHwEZZmWm/ZzDCDnw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743879131; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yglMeQsz123gDcvxpHoJHPRefkgMmB+L1OHo5trNH0k=; h=From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SwcONrkKJ7fRLuh2ZDz/YT8qaBvZrzXtC+1KLojbObbQO4Qig4pxf1fY03oFpGi3MmVtmgipWgfySaCwza0hFz/3Eh6tdlgXpVRRDPAq1cJ3bE64ioi+rJ4N1bZSp9kH+5R66JsMpRnIQuqpDGgmznz593NfX8RNJK/kHf5FAyE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=G3fGF0oz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="G3fGF0oz" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1743879128; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Zl94fjucYs05RLWzioyJn3c96IDAkKlAGNSFTZYapG4=; b=G3fGF0ozT/FWNAW+zopoKvo0I9LuGbv1RDewLsh4DTaMxkflO5wqJEDtUAubyYeSZiD1uK EgEKztJP/y/i+kbacCb0STTglwZt3c89LesWtG7XLFhVsDGgN0q2/r0MI1Ye6dAvPeY1bm gsrTKLgCh22HK2Gwlo1JPdKW7mKehfg= Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-167-tolhg1mROY68EPqVpryarQ-1; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 14:52:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: tolhg1mROY68EPqVpryarQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: tolhg1mROY68EPqVpryarQ_1743879126 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7c5d9d8890fso788697185a.1 for ; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743879126; x=1744483926; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zl94fjucYs05RLWzioyJn3c96IDAkKlAGNSFTZYapG4=; b=emBEifSaS2CgwcO7R6mp3Rt/DPWylNECKrVbXErLD2inrZAlzL+6ilCYGUbPaaod1G UQ9Yx34vuG9XrVBr6g6sYDVUsH6Z+diF4I5s1ZPxRvLA6Moh/nLBfVhesCKCF5vMMg7s zRMi5yO0PUd2MHwZJNZioPEdNBy4wvncX8nX0HzpktV8LrvyIXc2f7Y61prItSGgJCfQ x/UYs2yTv5CPrKag22gZDCnTMck4V52E9R7SS8NFxq6xqLUnBT2i88C0QYSuBQDs2MHb mOgQSx+yTq1trq0TQRW9hpmDkcNfVaNbvRLF4BZzvVST19hvSLPNL1cCf0Jra3T+Wlb0 1/Vg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXDb3my02V0dTi5TyPUpSXQppr6ppgZPvg1h1vUIi6kpESAxJZp1P5sV4g8gIxQkJbummglg2svxjQ5sHIiHgU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxtsUePkVUmCtShbbkx16AwSnsmfhHuni/azI/BdTjZ6amnjmFb gaSjYvrBCJ83r7kcHTd+GrwyU8c8JB77gA+rwkf8m85AJ04BAGjFVZhxHKRrJnALxwMhsbSPpeZ LqpPxz4esqeAC6tImqIu0Sx9dmU7CKJWv3vXbdmA9Kfm/MgpauxSYHD2Qji/AT/g1RQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsz4CYT7a4gMR3RUcYQ0mtgXyjOqTyV+H42SFhrwFUC1ehW0k9+aN2fntcolom 8k7amZ2slp2xAxhnWWzPvGkj03Pit5LvUZW4QSZSN41B+FnsBBnUMjVHeh4u+saM5sj7cVetJLW k1R0U0WimT2VmUqXS0cOUg2YJFbV/qdB9K79uEhsvIqWvQSV/K02+Nm3zkYiFHAwvwjqMUmiEml RDax0A4492fI/T0lcKoBUetkT/WSwowAsXR42BBtH/61cMnnrbOPOGdsvs0icxdVPfCmye8VXsl 8P/Qh0KN2AkJhkDcjUc+AzNhhgU/s/q2mssh5NlhpxXQxZHmVXt3utqskOAHTw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2891:b0:7c3:dd2d:c0e2 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7c76c98f69dmr1949212285a.13.1743879126143; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 11:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGkQV+pEi+TmbqcIT9YnR48A7CUH0qtIrkXsV397pZvj687wq1qfmiwok5il5SMAFPR0p8RYA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2891:b0:7c3:dd2d:c0e2 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7c76c98f69dmr1949210485a.13.1743879125856; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:188:c100:5710:315f:57b3:b997:5fca? ([2601:188:c100:5710:315f:57b3:b997:5fca]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-7c76e968c1fsm371472485a.52.2025.04.05.11.52.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Apr 2025 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Waiman Long X-Google-Original-From: Waiman Long Message-ID: <6712624c-c798-4ccf-afc1-6dfc9efc4b5e@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 14:52:04 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] memcg: Don't generate low/min events if either low/min or elow/emin is 0 To: Johannes Weiner , Waiman Long Cc: Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20250404012435.656045-1-longman@redhat.com> <1ac51e8e-8dc0-4cd8-9414-f28125061bb3@redhat.com> <20250404181308.GA300138@cmpxchg.org> <20250404193802.GA373778@cmpxchg.org> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20250404193802.GA373778@cmpxchg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 4/4/25 3:38 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 02:55:35PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 4/4/25 2:13 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> * Waiman points out that the weirdness is seeing low events without >>> having a low configured. Eh, this isn't really true with recursive >>> propagation; you may or may not have an elow depending on parental >>> configuration and sibling behavior. >>> >> Do you mind if we just don't update the low event count if low isn't >> set, but leave the rest the same like > What's the motivation for doing anything beyond the skip-on-!usage? It is to avoid making further change. I am fine with modifying the test to allow low event even when low isn't set. >> @@ -659,21 +659,25 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct >> mem_cgro> >>  static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_low(struct mem_cgroup *target, >>                                         struct mem_cgroup *memcg) >>  { >> +       unsigned long elow; >> + >>         if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) >>                 return false; >> >> -       return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow) >= >> -               page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); >> +       elow = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.elow); >> +       return elow && (page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) <= elow); >>  } >> >>  static inline bool mem_cgroup_below_min(struct mem_cgroup *target, >>                                         struct mem_cgroup *memcg) >>  { >> +       unsigned long emin; >> + >>         if (mem_cgroup_unprotected(target, memcg)) >>                 return false; >> >> -       return READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin) >= >> -               page_counter_read(&memcg->memory); >> +       emin = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.emin); >> +       return emin && (page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) <= emin); >>  } > This still redefines the empty case to mean excess. That's a quirk I > would have liked to avoid. I don't see why you would need it? OK, I will drop that. > >> @@ -5919,7 +5923,8 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, >> struct s> >>                                 sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; >>                                 continue; >>                         } >> -                       memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW); >> +                       if (memcg->memory.low) >> +                               memcg_memory_event(memcg, MEMCG_LOW); > That's not right. In setups where protection comes from the parent, no > breaches would ever be counted. OK. Will post a v3 to incorporate your suggestion. Thanks, Longman