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 3CFEAC433DB for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEF164F00 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230510AbhBVRrH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:47:07 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:3383 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230379AbhBVRrB (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:47:01 -0500 IronPort-SDR: 6DbAzOjQGdPPd6tAiFPw0/tokR3zHFUF8XwfYnnc944MPDRBowono0goBgmZIla/m337dBr+wl 5bJ5DtRe6WEA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9903"; a="245954072" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,197,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="245954072" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga104.jf.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 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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