From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com,
Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low()
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:26:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220429092620.GA23621@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220429010333.5rt2jwpiumnbuapf@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 06:03:33PM -0700, David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
> but my interpretation of the rest of that discussion with Roman is
> that we haven't yet decided whether we don't want to propagate
> memory.low events from children cgroups with memory.low == 0. Or at
> the very least, some more justification was requested on why not
> counting such events was prudent.
I'm not a fan of that original proposal of mine anymore (to be more
precise, of _only_ that patch, there's still the RFCness reason 1) to
consider).
As I shared with the last reply there, there's a problem in the behavior
which shouldn't be masked by filtering some events.
> Would you be ok with merging this patch so that the cgroup selftests can
> pass again based on the current behavior of the kernel, and we can then
> revert the changes to test_memcg_low() later on if and when we decide that
> we don't want to propagate memory.low events for memory.low == 0 children?
I still think that the behavior when there's no protection left for the
memory.low == 0 child, there should be no memory.low events (not just
uncounted but not happening) and test should not accept this (even
though it's the current behavior).
What might improve the test space would be to have two configs like
Original one (simplified here)
parent memory.low=50M memory.current=100M
` child1 memory.low=50M memory.current=50M
` child2 memory.low=0M memory.current=50M
New one (checks events due to recursive protection)
parent memory.low=50M memory.current=100M
` child1 memory.low=40M memory.current=50M
` child2 memory.low=0M memory.current=50M
The second config assigns recursive protection to child2 and should
therefore cause memory.low events in child2 (with memory_recursiveprot
enabled of course).
Or alternative new one (checks events due to recursive protection)
parent memory.low=50M memory.current=100M
` child1 memory.low=0M memory.current=50M
` child2 memory.low=0M memory.current=50M
HTH,
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-29 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-23 15:56 [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] cgroups: Refactor children cgroups in memcg tests David Vernet
2022-04-26 1:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] cgroup: Account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low() David Vernet
2022-04-27 14:09 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-29 1:03 ` David Vernet
2022-04-29 9:26 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2022-05-06 16:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-09 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-10 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-10 17:43 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-11 17:53 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-05-12 17:27 ` Michal Koutný
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] cgroup: Account for memory_localevents in test_memcg_oom_group_leaf_events() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] cgroup: Removing racy check in test_memcg_sock() David Vernet
2022-04-23 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] cgroup: Fix racy check in alloc_pagecache_max_30M() helper function David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests Michal Koutný
2022-05-12 17:30 ` David Vernet
2022-05-12 17:44 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] memcontrol selftests fixups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftests: memcg: Fix compilation Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:40 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:53 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 19:09 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in unprotected sibling Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:42 ` David Vernet
2022-05-13 18:54 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:54 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftests: memcg: Adjust expected reclaim values of protected cgroups Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-13 17:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftests: memcg: Remove protection from top level memcg Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 18:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 0:24 ` Andrew Morton
2022-05-18 0:52 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-05-18 15:44 ` Michal Koutný
2022-05-13 19:14 ` David Vernet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220429092620.GA23621@blackbody.suse.cz \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rpalethorpe@suse.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).