Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] selftests: memcg: Allow low event with no memory.low and memory_recursiveprot on

[Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>]

On 4/23/25 12:49 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Am I correct to assume that the purpose of 1d09069f5313f ("selftests:
>> memcg: expect no low events in unprotected sibling") is to force a
>> failure in the test_memcg_low test to force a change in the current
>> behavior? Or was it the case that it didn't fail when you submit your
>> patch?
> Yes, the failure had been intended to mark unexpected mode of reclaim
> (there's still a reproducer somewhere in the references). However, I
> learnt that:
>    a) it ain't easy to fix,
>    b) the only occurence of the troublesome behavior was in the test and
>       never reported by users in real life.
>
> I've started to prefer the variant where the particular check is
> indefinite since that.

OK, I will update the patch as you had suggested. I am fine doing that, 
just that I did not understand why you wanted the result to be undefined 
in the first place.

Cheers,
Longman