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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9d10df01-0127-fb40-81c3-cc53c9733c3e@virtuozzo.com>
 <YW04jWSv6pQb2Goe@dhcp22.suse.cz> <6b751abe-aa52-d1d8-2631-ec471975cc3a@virtuozzo.com>
 <YW1gRz0rTkJrvc4L@dhcp22.suse.cz> <27dc0c49-a0d6-875b-49c6-0ef5c0cc3ac8@virtuozzo.com>
 <YW1oMxNkUCaAimmg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YW1oMxNkUCaAimmg@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 08:07:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod42uwgrg83CCKn6JgYqAQtR1RLJSuybNYjtkFo4wVgT1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg 0/1] false global OOM triggered by memcg-limited task
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel@openvz.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 5:27 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> [restore the cc list]
>
> On Mon 18-10-21 15:14:26, Vasily Averin wrote:
> > On 18.10.2021 14:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 18-10-21 13:05:35, Vasily Averin wrote:
> > >> On 18.10.2021 12:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> Here we call try_charge_memcg() that return success and approve the allocation,
> > >> however then we hit into kmem limit and fail the allocation.
> > >
> > > Just to make sure I understand this would be for the v1 kmem explicit
> > > limit, correct?
> >
> > yes, I mean this limit.
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification. This is a known problem. Have a look
> at I think we consider that one to 0158115f702b ("memcg, kmem: deprecate
> kmem.limit_in_bytes"). We are reporting the deprecated and to-be removed
> status since 2019 without any actual report sugested by the kernel
> message. Maybe we should try and remove it and see whether that prompts
> some pushback.
>

Yes, I think now should be the right time to take the next step for
deprecation of kmem limits:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201118175726.2453120-1-shakeelb@google.com/