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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 3CFBBC433DF for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094BD20737 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 18:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chrisdown.name header.i=@chrisdown.name header.b="MxnkLlVm" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728053AbgHZSUN (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:20:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38166 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726939AbgHZSRb (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:17:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x442.google.com (mail-wr1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::442]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9C4C061574 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x442.google.com with SMTP id x7so2806276wro.3 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:17:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chrisdown.name; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y6ou1YIg6/FSZwY6sCFlxyJXSS2U1nvtnVmIFITiGPk=; b=MxnkLlVmtCcScdoWsKa8tkyeuJTdWCXa+GhoLiRAMUculUoCi6QlgZqMBu50pdj1E2 ENHqlArPo/uwpjZ7fjUAItyvX4NA/RGIirDmsw3a58G37cfKzv/UDyAqjYGifh8t+30d MJdnHS+XiGwEP2ZyX3m2e9ASoK19I/qva0lWY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=y6ou1YIg6/FSZwY6sCFlxyJXSS2U1nvtnVmIFITiGPk=; b=m23aeBDsP70JKFcVxnWWGeN7Rnne17iAzIwtl4aT7P5re7AJrONVTO7+Tk0k0/xdyP 636seERMngJLYb6T6TYH8FECkHDohUM3sTWdNi9QrZs731aEBfS/P3E+iQr77VpnTdrT gyVCjRYKi737ZPskeynDk6J1dMaqTD2TeZ6Jkzuu0SEePaLOroR97/pzkC+KcoA6NlkI wSGCIDZuo1uEXFIyY4jMFCqHrLmC7V1s/klvnOTpBE+4v4ca9jYIJjwiCVwDFgs2Cn0s nHIBmJuFf21vzFDoBFjh3T7YHuumM2Br3XjQ44Lx8fa6LPb7P2JuKvtGg7gwblsYj9R+ BWcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vStcjoA4GB9dpj0S19GTc6wUqDPtHTpgIsYxi/t8fuuiTVKlc leSREHBfqDPD4rml2rm0rH2k3Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGF58PxyEr+qbqcdQwHAQEk+hu1MR5ecSAWIYbHlJJCdRwZbU1YlLYxCkFy3QQ2wJ40JOTKw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:b1cf:: with SMTP id r15mr17866122wra.118.1598465846190; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a01:4b00:8432:8a00:63de:dd93:20be:f460]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o2sm7485419wrj.21.2020.08.26.11.17.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 11:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:17:25 +0100 From: Chris Down To: Xunlei Pang Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Vladimir Davydov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcg: Fix memcg reclaim soft lockup Message-ID: <20200826181725.GA893402@chrisdown.name> References: <1598449622-108748-1-git-send-email-xlpang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200826141044.GA831829@chrisdown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200826141044.GA831829@chrisdown.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Down writes: >Xunlei Pang writes: >>Add cond_resched() at the upper shrink_node_memcgs() to solve this >>issue, and any other possible issue like meomry.min protection. > >I understand the general intent of the patch, but could you clarify >your concern around memory protection? Oh, I see, your concern is just preemption in general rather than a fixing anything for the memory protection side. In which case, go for it, but I agree with Michael that it would be nice to send v3 with a clarifying comment. Acked-by: Chris Down