From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796671EFFBB for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 17:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745427818; cv=none; b=lCuKFmNFfObM3yPAuYOfqCWAqjnp6ncyAJlsHZzx/gaSTOnk44VKPtLiop2LejyQsAMFTsUW12v9t/BHU0LxT4n4Pmt5FvjWK05o/31wddDs0xyPLsIdZLBAiJ0SJk2J93xOqO8UvB/39KIn+PUD/v/yKh30RhDDivDbI3/e7B8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745427818; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0XVlTRBgn1AxRwlX5L5gSRRecvWpaBNYjygKefRRLLU=; h=From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=a8JhguUiq8fCC0+zSy1D7JGxqvu+CTo2JNWXfIHUM+FACLsTWiugGCPXTu4m/COYsr3PdVGXNucna5GEal50G271jOqZmnq0NsVVDVqqDtNXRmQFb8ECmQ7kwbL6GU4J69lgK2JtiUIO9QcTDlHvlXdUAIQqN1WQQVKF5QjmjCY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=cNIc9Q2I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="cNIc9Q2I" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1745427815; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+3+7SBYIT0EMoPG6wTKgHOcC2ipTqOMHgJd9hrWDUp8=; b=cNIc9Q2IKqCImx36/GS0GOQjwrOr5Wq4ELk+DNh4SqmDk5K5d0tMTZTHhqN5nB6kuYBUkf o3oIz8Obk8uUI6n7c2J5GLGnn7OciXhT+I5DLBEm/zaJaWmFQsRF4HsAdkCeQtWi7IcQVG OF+jLKkk7R88awGAtpUmJAUEZOTs71Q= Received: from mail-qv1-f72.google.com (mail-qv1-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-654-bpIfVjBuMaS9eZq6QJDLCA-1; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:03:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: bpIfVjBuMaS9eZq6QJDLCA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: bpIfVjBuMaS9eZq6QJDLCA_1745427813 Received: by mail-qv1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6f0e2d30ab4so1646936d6.1 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1745427813; x=1746032613; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+3+7SBYIT0EMoPG6wTKgHOcC2ipTqOMHgJd9hrWDUp8=; b=tJJRn55QHh7+Ju05UYrANi6gLeYnWcGR6Z9QvyJnAWisWcgVpZi5PcqQEyKU/Wsw8h RWf/HwkBmydzZ3O6EuUZUY332ya+gjYEoIjG7FckPGhDqKv7DMwG3kbtBg7DfXJYaAlL f0vRUhYnVGJd07Zhtbi/KhC7OQzJEzZ0wItiV32CpYrcwwyOH9MpBeGsqYFBZlhous1B sMxkPCvn056l27/VO4BBDUZV1SKcM0Rk2aQzORWSNj19oMGGTKPn6daghlejt08HJnJ+ 4m4q031QqiVFAwjoxMXpyYSiCsmxd57CLPoK0ToqtDHppwwhVJViytIA4LUV6qL+nMDc lpqw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVxBqHkNMGAAHGoj/qo88rYLxftRGRUDsH2FMv376Nk8JEWpYUXmoie4SvxErOaVgZz6u1UOj3hZyd4oqc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwPbaLt8+I/1gUGiGTobKPzVW6ikzVoZzGcod/W4x/70B67gumU 7YzM3Fy8JvCaWSKWh3nuodk1xIYhz4NMz6dZrHnaaJw3/YVawL95n1jkVHlZOLn1r/RQrcgBcId S89nUWclhYQ3Ci3ARhxRiu7zTYE/Ug9yAYshBPWHf7p1nIff60LN49pnRViuOtA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvLeBD0GwsHt8ut+pbK8d3JXC9fXTamaZoFTlZGpWaRyPldst/obJW1BqOjzhF /JLkSUU+RymSEop4+HTg54By21NemVKYT+dsSnIfYDjzhPLO/ySn49qu8H7X83THSO6gj//+CkO RA1LNjdrqv8r9arARU/mEy7ffRbIgqxxg+qOLN+quwMtfUbB1QA5PHEw1GxXhSC4IH+uXq+auJR 9kuhMxnKX6rRhx4487fAfXTS2oIcYSNitGOE6M9TmjpfAmNYzRMlx6+bIAUEiTeGzaWqanIW9Ch YiWwBRX8t1kVZhtbYZnfyx4Od4cK42VVQm4TJIipRgOCc0cFyErGK76gXg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5292:b0:6e8:fbb7:6764 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6f2c46992f3mr343421186d6.45.1745427813505; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE0Jady51wQ0Po3UBtRHbwZVYJnEaUhKMy5jHguua0DBLjtBhN5wZ/fJFmpmlLKNdXjaqxXqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5292:b0:6e8:fbb7:6764 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6f2c46992f3mr343420656d6.45.1745427813160; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:408:c101:1d00:6621:a07c:fed4:cbba? ([2601:408:c101:1d00:6621:a07c:fed4:cbba]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6f2c2b33134sm72456966d6.54.2025.04.23.10.03.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Waiman Long X-Google-Original-From: Waiman Long Message-ID: <40e1ec0a-63a8-4c07-8b42-e31676453265@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:03:31 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] selftests: memcg: Allow low event with no memory.low and memory_recursiveprot on To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , Waiman Long Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20250415210415.13414-1-longman@redhat.com> <20250415210415.13414-2-longman@redhat.com> <0033f39f-ff47-4645-9b1e-f19ff39233e7@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 4/23/25 12:49 PM, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Waiman Long 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