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:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:42:25 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: vmpressure: don't count proactive reclaim in
 vmpressure
Message-ID: <Ytk7octCv1DZeelM@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20220714064918.2576464-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <YtfJug77XJ9BPA8L@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALvZod7X3PsM2+ZrWXwb75FNBBjaBGJpjd+WVmzr5hStROvW+g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod7X3PsM2+ZrWXwb75FNBBjaBGJpjd+WVmzr5hStROvW+g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 20-07-22 10:49:53, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:24 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > I think what we are missing here is
> > - explain that this doesn't have any effect on existing users of
> >   vmpressure user interface because that is cgroup v1 and memory.reclaim
> >   is v2 feature. This is a trivial statement but quite useful for future
> >   readers of this commit
> > - explain the effect on the networking layer and typical usecases
> >   memory.reclaim is used for currently and ideally document that.
> 
> I agree with the above two points (Yosry, please address those) but
> the following third point is orthogonal and we don't really need to
> have an answer for this patch to be accepted.
> 
> > - how are we going to deal with users who would really want to use
> >   memory.reclaim interface as a replacement for existing hard/high
> >   memory reclaim? Is that even something that the interface is intended
> >   for?
> 
> I do agree that this question is important. Nowadays I am looking at
> this from a different perspective and use-case. More concretely how
> (and why) to replace vmpressure based network throttling for cgroup
> v2. I will start a separate thread for that discussion.

I think we should be good to document this side effect for now. If you
have a plan to change to vmpressure based throttling then only better.
But one way or the other impact of the memory.reclaim interface on
netwroking should be documented properly.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs