Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2023 22:08:11 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.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
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Re: [PATCH 6.1 033/219] memcg: drop
 kmem.limit_in_bytes
Message-ID: <ZQtRKzUOfdaVKRCF@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <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>
 <CALvZod7E_Jm9y+40OKtLs5EFA0ptKGjoe2BU58SY29pUiPc93g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQskGGAwlsr1YxAp@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALvZod6b3=+=xXEUeWOQW3t_URJpeeVX46WjBHv5BS+436KoFA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod6b3=+=xXEUeWOQW3t_URJpeeVX46WjBHv5BS+436KoFA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 20-09-23 12:46:23, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 20-09-23 08:32:42, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > Also I don't think reverting 58056f77502f would give any benefit.
> >
> > Not reverting 58056f77502f would re-introduce the regression in some
> > non-patched versions of Docker runtimes which cannot handle ENOTSUPP.
> > So I think we need to revert both or none of them. I would prefer the
> > later (option 1) as the fix is trivial but I do understand headache
> > of chasing all those outdated deployments or vendor code forks.
> 
> I think that would be too much conservative an approach but I don't

Well, TBH I do not really see any sifference between one set of broken
userspace or the other. Both are making assumptions on our interfaces
and they do not overlap unfortunately.

> have a strong opinion against it. Also just to be clear we are not
> talking about full revert of 58056f77502f but just the returning of
> EOPNOTSUPP, right?

If we allow the limit to be set without returning a failure then we
still have options 2 and 3 on how to deal with that. One of them is to
enforce the limit.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs