From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD03BC433E0 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:45:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3534064DFD for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:45:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3534064DFD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id ACF176B0075; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A80748D0002; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:45:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 997FF8D0001; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:45:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0033.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.33]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837026B0075 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471303A87 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:45:15 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77846630190.20.D850756 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681A1DD for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:45:14 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: HK6ikfS/dUjkb7K10ULyUbbRp5l8DFTyozG0Ddr0wN/Ymvn/iD9qz0L2qGlyNj2OoHBBWkbbbu BrzRJuXhq6UA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9903"; a="203933113" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,197,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="203933113" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2021 09:45:13 -0800 IronPort-SDR: JY/PWzxEGyxqu/7pjSpHmBwJ1805Kcb5WA3ULltjKaUFxNP0jB3W68JvxDoI/TrIi9t0/6i+K5 gPUzcXSZVpGQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,197,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="389942411" Received: from schen9-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.251.12.88]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2021 09:45:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: Fix missing mem cgroup soft limit tree updates To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Dave Hansen , Ying Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1ecd277e-c236-08e1-f068-3dd65ee0e640@linux.intel.com> From: Tim Chen Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:45:12 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 681A1DD X-Stat-Signature: qwzcqiyyta6ioxnpam5cd594pfcj4bnt Received-SPF: none (linux.intel.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf20; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mga01.intel.com; client-ip=192.55.52.88 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1614015914-372588 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2/22/21 12:41 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> >> Ah, that's true. The added check for soft_limit_excess is not needed. >> >> Do you think it is still a good idea to add patch 3 to >> restrict the uncharge update in page batch of the same node and cgroup? > > I would rather drop it. The less the soft limit reclaim code is spread > around the better. > Let's drop patch 3 then. I find patch 2 is the most critical one in this series. Without that patch some cgroups exceeds the soft limit excess very badly. Tim