Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 17:54:44 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc:     void@manifault.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        mhocko@kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com, tj@kernel.org,
        Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] selftests: memcg: Expect no low events in
 unprotected sibling
Message-ID: <20220518155444.GB22503@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20220512174452.tr34tuh4k5jm6qjs@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
 <20220513171811.730-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <20220513171811.730-3-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yn6pWPodGPlz+D8G@carbon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Hi.

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:54:16AM -0700, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
> Hm, what are our plans here? Are we going to fix it soon-ish, or there
> is still no agreement on how to proceed?

Here are some of my ideas in random order so far and comments:

0) mask memory.events:low
-> not a real fix

1) don't do SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX roundup
-> won't solve sudden lift of protection

2) instead of SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX over-reclaim, do same under-reclaim
-> same problem as 1)

3) update children_low_usage transactionally (after reclaim round is done)
- ???

4) don't recursively distribute residual protection in the same reclaim round
- ???

5) iterate siblings from highest to lowest protection 
- not a solution

6) assign only >SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX of residuum
- need more info

I'm discouraged by possible complexity of 3) or 4), while 6) is what I'd
like to look more into.

HTH,
Michal