Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:47:45 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memcg: Enable fine-grained per process memory
 control
Message-ID: <20200907114745.GA1076657@chrisdown.name>
References: <20200817140831.30260-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20200818091453.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200818092617.GN28270@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200818095910.GM2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200818100516.GO28270@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200818101844.GO2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200818134900.GA829964@cmpxchg.org>
 <20200821193716.GU3982@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200824165850.GA932571@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200824165850.GA932571@cmpxchg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Johannes Weiner writes:
>That all being said, the semantics of the new 'high' limit in cgroup2
>have allowed us to move reclaim/limit enforcement out of the
>allocation context and into the userspace return path.
>
>See the call to mem_cgroup_handle_over_high() from
>tracehook_notify_resume(), and the comments in try_charge() around
>set_notify_resume().
>
>This already solves the free->alloc ordering problem by allowing the
>allocation to exceed the limit temporarily until at least all locks
>are dropped, we know we can sleep etc., before performing enforcement.
>
>That means we may not need the timed sleeps anymore for that purpose,
>and could bring back directed waits for freeing-events again.
>
>What do you think? Any hazards around indefinite sleeps in that resume
>path? It's called before __rseq_handle_notify_resume and the
>arch-specific resume callback (which appears to be a no-op currently).
>
>Chris, Michal, what are your thoughts? It would certainly be simpler
>conceptually on the memcg side.

I'm not against that, although I personally don't feel very strongly about it 
either way, since the current behaviour clearly works in practice.