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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YwRjyx6wFLk8WTDe@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAGWkznGaYTv4u4kOo-rupfyWzDNJXNKTchwP6dbUK-=UXWm47w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwSQ4APOu/H7lYGL@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAGWkznGd6mgareABseMKY5p0f1=5dkfVkj=NS7_B6OkXBYSwyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwS/S9Sd1OWnT81Q@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAGWkznGYLyF+njUB0gFF3JVdThnK9JaNsqxXYFhbdSwEQpCxvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwXYVjRpXQjQMsxr@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAGWkznEqX3DwHW_owiK+HuuQ-HsUYK4vKmLhSxgzGn20Vzid2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwX89JCQCKMMYdG9@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAGWkznF+dBjLzAxMMXWYSZ_5q3KA-ou0P7XM7jSYN7JSRp8N0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwcZctA2S3Sd0LBN@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YwcZctA2S3Sd0LBN@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:34:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznH5gQXigdLx=fwdL0uqdGx4WE9QP8b8cbWFxr=Rdg-CZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: use root_mem_cgroup when css is inherited
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Ke Wang <ke.wang@unisoc.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:40 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 25-08-22 08:43:52, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:27 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed 24-08-22 17:34:42, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> [...]
> > > > IMHO, charging the pages which out of explicitly memory
> > > > enabled group to root could solve all of the above constraints with no
> > > > harm.
> > >
> > > This would break the hierarchical property of the controller. So a
> > > strong no no. Consider the following example
> > >
> > >        root
> > >         |
> > >         A
> > > controllers="memory"
> > > memory.max = 1G
> > > subtree_control=""
> > > |      |      |
> > > A1     A2     A3
> > >
> > > althought A1,2,3 do not have their memory controller enabled explicitly
> > > they are still constrained by the A memcg limit. If you just charge to
> > > the root because it doesn't have memory controller enabled explicitly
> > > then you just evade that constrain. I hope you understand why that is a
> > > problem.
> > IMO, A1-A3 should be explicitly enabled via echo "+memory" >
> > A/subtree_control since memory.max has been set.
>
> You seem to be missing the point I've triedy to make here. It is not
> about how the respective subtree should or shouldn't be configured. It
> is about the hierarchical behavior. Configuration at a higher level should be
> enforced under subtree no matter how that subtree decides to
> enabled/disable controllers. Such subtree might have beeb delegated
> and configured differently yet the constrain should be still applied.
> See the point?
>
> What you seem to be proposing is similar to cgroup v1 use_hierarchy
> configuration. It has been decided that this is undesirable very early
> in the cgroup v2 development because it make delegation impossible
> (among other reasons).
Ok, I would like to know how AA3 achieve the goal of competing with A1
and A2 for cpu but keep memory out of control under current policy?
        root
         |
         A
 controllers="memory,cpu"
 memory.max = 1G
 subtree_control="memory,cpu"
 |      |            |
 A1     A2     A3 subtree_control="cpu"
                      |      |
                    AA3   AA4 controllers="cpu"
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs