Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:18:43 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: memcontrol: don't account swap failures not due
 to cgroup limits
Message-ID: <20230206161843.GD21332@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20230202155626.1829121-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <CAJD7tkaCpD0LpzdA+NsZj2WK=iQCLn7RS9qc7K53Qonxhp4TgA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkaCpD0LpzdA+NsZj2WK=iQCLn7RS9qc7K53Qonxhp4TgA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 10:30:40AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.co=
m> wrote:
> > b) Only count cgroup swap events when they are actually due to a
> >    cgroup's own limit. Exclude failures that are due to physical swap
> >    shortage or other system-level conditions (like !THP_SWAP). Also
> >    count them at the level where the limit is configured, which may be
> >    above the local cgroup that holds the page-to-be-swapped.
> >
> >    This is in line with how memory.swap.high, memory.high and
> >    memory.max events are counted.
> >
> >    However, it's a change in documented behavior.
>=20
> This option makes sense to me, but I can't speak to the change of
> documented behavior. However, looking at the code, it seems like if we do=
 this
> the "max" & "fail" counters become effectively the same. "fail" would
> not provide much value then.
>=20
> I wonder if it makes sense to have both, and clarify that "fail" -
> "max" would be non-limit based failures (e.g. ran out of swap space),
> or would this cause confusion as to whether those non-limit failures
> were transient (THP fallback) or eventual?

I somewhat second this.

Perhaps, could the patch (and arguments) be split in two:
1) count .max events on respective limit's level (other limits consistency),
2) redefine (remove?) memory.swap.fail events?

Michal

--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCY+EoYQAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
uXuJAQCRA9+UXkEzfVoUWjltXKLdc9vqvH0D5zne/GZdvubZBwEAoxc1UQlw1YcL
8fUMQsShXoCJhwMdfV5kVkrsg1du8ww=
=agtq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+KJYzRxRHjYqLGl5--