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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FAEC433F5 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230044AbiJKRPK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:15:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33458 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230024AbiJKRPF (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:15:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216C536DEB for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:15:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1665508504; 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=MnvCQgz6H0YpLOGZ3RFU26i2x7EAPQhf8onHHyzectI=; b=OqcpOaijhtf4UMDVEYBCIrc0/XMa75pUroAcSrrVHb0rpgJnkbglmUB2Saa7hf/d2buAFX ttBFDhfNTX8k6S+z4nkG3ufN4BgjC7mw5AFFwJTobgBeXgUcjexx1HARe9eE5hV1sqFxe/ KgiWzJFD68nSoI11gaa6+Gsmvp88/u8= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-168-fhvcurG1PIO_86zyIJwZNw-1; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:15:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fhvcurG1PIO_86zyIJwZNw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41E6F38041CC; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.22.17.56] (unknown [10.22.17.56]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1F740E992A; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:14:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no protection needed Content-Language: en-US To: Tejun Heo Cc: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Down References: <20221011143015.1152968-1-longman@redhat.com> From: Waiman Long In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/11/22 13:04, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to >> disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to >> track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be >> acceptable? > Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup > actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is > to report the low events accordingly. Yes, that is another possible way of looking at that problem. Will talk to our QE people of doing that. Thanks, Longman