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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 07:04:32 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no
 protection needed
Message-ID: <Y0WiIDmPPXYZuHpX@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20221011143015.1152968-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <Y0WOPZxWSnUjzZ8e@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <defdb421-342e-ebcb-d7f0-005559dd1e0d@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <defdb421-342e-ebcb-d7f0-005559dd1e0d@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to
> disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to
> track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be
> acceptable?

Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup
actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is
to report the low events accordingly.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun