Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp1983275pxb; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwj88aV9K6D/mYmvpsce2YsdaHc1rx17IA0VMkEBJZ8iKt65NDkEQqP9czb91LxvSo5tNKZ X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8990:: with SMTP id m16mr27186148iol.170.1629735065319; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1629735065; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=sQjR8lNJLikLtM8EnZ9VGqtan7Voe8aFcoc9BN6vqRlKxEM54SeuP95NV2wfveDCMl Zt2ZJJO8Ovh6kMilt9FqMFkacIhKLcghnhfbMrI185xwq1CkePflCJKnpiBF8Dex0BRa DnJN9/CxI1mSoddg7Xt/YMcCKBL2jukLkEJKLXLTDyN4vMbZhgmraeXKwQMeJT5NYFff eOovCA0PnNraK85fUEBrTmKunOA3igA8rHjIDZY1TfR4iTtccAArQpTiqAdWnN9kKmGZ LeOfDPYa8pJY8TS5x/tYpB0NlFMY/KIEpMmnxVFin3MZLKjd5CZQrRmW+IhyiawnsCIe htAQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=4eFiPUzslOJAtwIAy5T1boXHUjZS+B3BFncyco1H9t0=; b=yiLDN/wrxE8oPeHzCIlY6HTolFk+N4BDwBwvVW6EvYNQwtszkK5tY03la0LnwoGoKh PclIjUcqJaM2vGbhccwVPYG/GNMzU6UAYxYk1Lz87nOE7ivAKf81o/+vtuDOANJczCF1 qj5B5bgxErvR1fGnKSMwuca1gXUmPp/pzGDwXG2jsIp6mvbgAMjXKS0US5LTcwhvtQ8h x/f/XnLIwEtItfZGGkfigHxT521ORy3qo79jmvHfqN2K2jTRB9OWXmVMWYA2eTCru0AF usFZh1M/V6DgXAL6wX63F1q5y+HptQaC/4guBK2jLrN38bprNJ6uJZ+ZxYOTUjF6i0Mm 6lng== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=NquIf+8H; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b24si14656402jal.12.2021.08.23.09.10.52; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:11:05 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=NquIf+8H; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229726AbhHWQKV (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:10:21 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:41470 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229477AbhHWQKO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:10:14 -0400 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3AF1FFCA; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:09:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1629734970; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4eFiPUzslOJAtwIAy5T1boXHUjZS+B3BFncyco1H9t0=; b=NquIf+8HHYFommojg9qouyGn7kgUzV1xmNACFJshhh9se3FdrIE5O4RaqMolDjBC5qJXP+ RdQ/9+JCgPxmJgZPlLeOLSnW5XB1Au8FPrJdcsY8lpb+3zyuNQQ2LIHB36CbjdSeGkwG8F 6qgCzo2IBMVEZ4s1MHEi8GO28hWMb9k= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9577E13BE6; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id G048IzrII2HvUgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:09:30 +0000 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:09:29 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Leon Yang , Chris Down , Roman Gushchin , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: fix occasional OOMs due to proportional memory.low reclaim Message-ID: References: <20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210817180506.220056-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello (and sorry for a belated reply). On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:05:06PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > @@ -2576,6 +2578,15 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, > [...] > + /* memory.low scaling, make sure we retry before OOM */ > + if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim && low > min) { > + protection = low; > + sc->memcg_low_skipped = 1; IIUC, this won't result in memory.events:low increment although the effect is similar (breaching (partial) memory.low protection) and signal to the user is comparable (overcommited memory.low). Admittedly, this patch's behavior adheres to the current documentation (Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst): > The number of times the cgroup is reclaimed due to high memory > pressure even though its usage is under the low boundary, however, that definition might not be what the useful indicator would be now. Is it worth including these partial breaches into memory.events:low? Regards, Michal