Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: fix wrong mem cgroup protection

[Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:05 PM Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name> wrote:
>
> I'm not debating whether your test case is correct or not, or whether the
> numbers are correct or not. The point is that 3 out of 4 people from mm list
> who have looked at this patch have no idea what it's trying to do, why it's
> important, or why these numbers *should* necessarily be wrong.
>
> It's good that you have provided a way to demonstrate the effects of your
> changes, but one can't solve cognitive gaps with testing. If one could, then
> things like TDD would be effective on complex projects -- but they aren't[0].
>
> We're really getting off in the weeds here, though. I just want to make it
> clear to you that if you think "more testing" is a solution to kernel ailments
> like this, you're going to be disappointed.
>
> 0: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~csstmms/FucciEtAl_ESEM2016.pdf


Hi  Chris,

Pls. answer my question directly - what should protection be if memcg
is the target memcg ?
If you can't answer my quesiont, I suggest to revist your patch.

-- 
Thanks
Yafang