Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp1983905ybv; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/DD57QnVsNUm1lkTdMyJGDipurWtBClQsIW0BylycWj3F2gPCUjcIfOPAMpwkyl1LNF+Q X-Received: by 2002:aca:5f85:: with SMTP id t127mr2658086oib.1.1581700651667; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:31 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1581700651; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Cx1d96RgcvFDI74/t5ZGHa84dtyBmeE1ehJDY8XsnZr80jfXp//yE5FdpKYB2l/nRK 19Rb/vywq/3BrQjixDMZVQRqsm/o+thsicyQ3op8963aqDmR+H3t2/7Krb///FNrns4B w6wQDu+5n5BhBAK7ze6gcdd6oHZ3WsOxwLjAW1xQnKSkalesTmeEW9yghJl5SPGjKnEc UMbpFUP3RMEdRGADWPU967i1+Df+AcILFmRkNFbSodlgQ/FrAWQatRsConklzGzeBF2h UgLOAKkZyu6eE2utDcmRfKdyXqkRvAdqrVAmJQaTg11+xw5h1QpKKtgY65VHCoTslfeF 0rcw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=IdlVcb5dgVZlXRPD8rS0Jjj+aVnIOc6gaR6g0J3FbHQ=; b=quqMPE3FPY4lEoRwhIa/S4d6lE/+TrigBm9N8kgs+QwLyipriiU4zVGU/GXxDkg5c3 /HCei8XEwDvQA0fABAca0deuzy51Vb7H840MsfJcL5FhSaMBJDUgu23ArAkwfS43p7iH Vyr7/D+0PYlGzfAuhEyH2emecE7DHeBUxv6/EHsRlkCNOjr+3RsXJEGWwubl3fNTfIx1 eaRbzMDxDZEds2UzKjPQOJeap2ecmlhDzFoOAiv/6UpS2FHdB6tVJy/4lNUq7tWjT8eZ qSf//Z14e9t1xyXwrUI48y+KlTmadFKqvkZt0IthWBnNYbzzjZNeem7rXAc0S16QNB7L wrHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ODwbG+2j; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l15si2974975oic.220.2020.02.14.09.17.19; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ODwbG+2j; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392013AbgBNRRM (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:17:12 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:42494 "EHLO mail-qk1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391794AbgBNRRJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:17:09 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id o28so8553197qkj.9; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=IdlVcb5dgVZlXRPD8rS0Jjj+aVnIOc6gaR6g0J3FbHQ=; b=ODwbG+2jhyTDeEphpYnP1t0/Mb0Zzo8HZnFx1Ag/PWLSFJxk35pcALKXDL2gz9QssI XGpd6QU9jxYgpiAQ/1CbldrTlr0dP4TgK287aaDEyjK4Kj1Mx5ZM7hCTN6jccFtQpZMC h8fl0XeptvgVV+h2z5hk0vPFGUNOaKT0NE6OawTpmp+slE3nNA04K+NQZTvjz6YlxEjj gKSGXmQ39+QRRclyI/pipZ00ZT1svVygDCYVy8d24a8FF8aEnAJ/M5UsBpftzWN4HWlj mPD8Bkdfj9Edh4Xog2Rl3GtPLK1BB54JpYSIHFSD5tqtvlntmVR7NN+aegN2xFumOcCq /JXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=IdlVcb5dgVZlXRPD8rS0Jjj+aVnIOc6gaR6g0J3FbHQ=; b=m2aaNWf5arAg72HHFyylmAIIAZuwRn8mb30tuigHyD0bENiukMFEKoM/tadFfj0du1 a3RYVsu9Fi4YUtjacSWC0uwpRZIOpn6dajDx7mv6fSt4kihSBYDLH/uGWi7HZ3RGMs5K DrVEF2l0+ObRuoECkddaW9e+fHM64B8mmkx86W/Z8GiZRlANzfp1k7dBRdpDZZf4WyhZ GEVi9wEyVbdFFkFYEdICli87Kn8E6IvJIv4fGMEc1vRqdep0IWHWqYUyo3tHnCMH1hph GtIjxyFNlcuPRRKL0OUwDoUIT3tYrP13FXiNv8QuFxE0p+fji4cOQRJfWz2BOontHSQ/ cfOg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjKiR8Ouox01TsWcgNXAkzUpZb/2TFMsXtkque83w7bxzeUkiJ s0BMIwTxlStxUmBrnw98E6M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:14a2:: with SMTP id x2mr3676073qkj.36.1581700627406; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2600:380:5844:e924:5e59:2aee:b2b0:b657]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4sm3614110qkh.59.2020.02.14.09.17.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Feb 2020 09:17:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:17:04 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: memcontrol: recursive memory.low protection Message-ID: <20200214171704.GN88887@mtj.thefacebook.com> References: <20200213074049.GA31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200213135348.GF88887@mtj.thefacebook.com> <20200213154731.GE31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200213155249.GI88887@mtj.thefacebook.com> <20200213163636.GH31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200213165711.GJ88887@mtj.thefacebook.com> <20200214071537.GL31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200214135728.GK88887@mtj.thefacebook.com> <20200214151318.GC31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200214165311.GA253674@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200214165311.GA253674@cmpxchg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:53:11AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > However, what you've really done just now is flattened the resource > hierarchy. You configured the_workload not just more important than > its sibling "misc", but you actually pulled it up the resource tree > and declared it more important than what's running in other sessions, > what users are running, and even the system software. Your cgroup tree > still reflects process ownership, but it doesn't actually reflect the > resource hierarchy you just configured. Just to second this point, anything moving in this direction will be a hard nack from me. We don't want use_hierarchy for cgroup2 and I'm baffled that this is even being suggested seriously. If we have learned *anything* from cgroup1's mistakes, this should be the one. Thanks. -- tejun