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> <CALvZod42uwgrg83CCKn6JgYqAQtR1RLJSuybNYjtkFo4wVgT1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <153f7aa6-39ef-f064-8745-a9489e088239@virtuozzo.com>
In-Reply-To: <153f7aa6-39ef-f064-8745-a9489e088239@virtuozzo.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod5Kut63MLVfCkEW5XemqN4Jnd1iEQD_Gk0w5=fPffL8Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg 0/1] false global OOM triggered by memcg-limited task
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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 11:52 AM Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 18.10.2021 18:07, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > 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/
>
> Are you going to push it to stable kernels too?
>

Not really. Is there a reason I should? More exposure to catch breakage?