Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:44:24 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: memcg: Do not count memory.low reclaim if it
 does not happen
Message-ID: <YjuUuLW+8iRtYOmP@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20220322182248.29121-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220322182248.29121-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:22:48PM +0100, Michal Koutny wrote:
> This was observed with memcontrol selftest/new LTP test but can be also
> reproduced in simplified setup of two siblings:
> 
> 	`parent .low=50M
> 	  ` s1	.low=50M  .current=50M+ε
> 	  ` s2  .low=0M   .current=50M
> 
> The expectation is that s2/memory.events:low will be zero under outer
> reclaimer since no protection should be given to cgroup s2 (even with
> memory_recursiveprot).
> 
> However, this does not happen. The apparent reason is that when s1 is
> considered for (proportional) reclaim the scanned proportion is rounded
> up to SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX and slightly over-proportional amount is
> reclaimed. Consequently, when the effective low value of s2 is
> calculated, it observes unclaimed parent's protection from s1
> (ε-SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX in theory) and effectively appropriates it.
> The effect is slightly regularized protection (workload dependent)
> between siblings and misreported MEMCG_LOW event when reclaiming s2 with
> this protection.
> 
> Fix the behavior by not reporting breached memory.low in such
> situations. (This affects also setups where all siblings have
> memory.low=0, parent's memory.events:low will still be non-zero when
> parent's memory.low is breached but it will be reduced by the events
> originated in children.)
> 
> Fixes: 8a931f801340 ("mm: memcontrol: recursive memory.low protection")
> Reported-by: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220321101429.3703-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com/
> Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>

Hi Michal!

Does it mean that in the following configuration:
	`parent .low=50M
	  ` s1	.low=0M   .current=50M
	  ` s2  .low=0M   .current=50M
there will be no memory.events::low at all? (assuming the recursive thing is on)

Thanks!