Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230917191040.964416434@linuxfoundation.org> <20230917191042.204185566@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20230920081101.GA12096@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <ZQqwzK/fDm+GLiKM@dhcp22.suse.cz> <101987a1-b1ab-429d-af03-b6bdf6216474@linux.microsoft.com>
 <ZQrSXh+riB7NnZuE@dhcp22.suse.cz> <4eb47d6a-b127-4aad-af30-896c3b9505b4@linux.microsoft.com>
 <ZQr3+YfcBM2Er6F7@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ZQr3+YfcBM2Er6F7@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 08:32:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod7E_Jm9y+40OKtLs5EFA0ptKGjoe2BU58SY29pUiPc93g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Re: [PATCH 6.1 033/219] memcg: drop kmem.limit_in_bytes
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev,
        mathieu.tortuyaux@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:47=E2=80=AFAM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrot=
e:
>
> On Wed 20-09-23 15:25:23, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 9/20/2023 1:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I mean, normally I would be just fine reverting this API change becau=
se
> > > it is disruptive but the only way to have the file available and not
> > > break somebody is to revert 58056f77502f ("memcg, kmem: further
> > > deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes") as well. Or to ignore any value writt=
en
> > > there but that sounds rather dubious. Although one could argue this
> > > would mimic nokmem kernel option.
> > >
> >
> > I just want to make sure we don't introduce yet another new behavior in=
 this legacy
> > system. I have not seen breakage due to 58056f77502f. Mimicing nokmem s=
ounds good but
> > does this mean "don't enforce limits" (that should be fine) or "ignore =
writes to the limit"
> > (=3Ddon't event store the written limit). The latter might have uninten=
ded consequences.
>
> Yes it would mean that the limit is never enforced. Bad as it is the
> thing is that the hard limit on kernel memory is broken by design and
> unfixable.  This causes all sorts of unexpected kernel allocation
> failures that this is simply unsafe to use.
>
> All that being said I can see the following options
> 1) keep the current upstream status and not export the file
> 2) revert both 58056f77502f and 86327e8eb94 and make it clear
>    that kmem.limit_in_bytes is unsupported so failures or misbehavior
>    as a result of the limit being hit are likely not going to be
>    investigated or fixed.
> 3) reverting like in 2) but never inforce the limit (so basically nokmem
>    semantic)
>
> Shakeel, Johannes, Roman, Muchun Song what do you think?

I think the safe option would be to revert 86327e8eb94 for now and put
pr_warn_once even for the read of kmem.limit_in_bytes? We can retry
86327e8eb94 in a year or so.

However personally I would prefer option 1. Also I don't think
reverting  58056f77502f would give any benefit.