Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230928005723.1709119-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> <20230928005723.1709119-2-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkanr99d_Y=LefQTFsykyiO5oZpPUC=suD3P-L5eS=0SXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=M=8KYqvBTz9z1csrsFUpGf2tgWj-oyu96dSpRjn3ZnUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=Npb4mwZ2ibJkmD5GyqXazr7PH8UGLu+YSDY8acf152Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkaeDBTHC3UM91O56yrp8oCU-UBO6i_5HJMjVBDQAw0ipQ@mail.gmail.com> <20230929150829.GA16353@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230929150829.GA16353@cmpxchg.org>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:11:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZ1NiMMvQhxGSGzsPqYfBpwzP6svPe17s2FTDoHY6jYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] hugetlb: memcg: account hugetlb-backed memory in
 memory controller
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        riel@surriel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        shakeelb@google.com, muchun.song@linux.dev, tj@kernel.org,
        lizefan.x@bytedance.com, shuah@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 8:08=E2=80=AFAM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 06:18:19PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > My concern is the scenario where the memory controller is mounted in
> > cgroup v1, and cgroup v2 is mounted with memory_hugetlb_accounting.
> >
> > In this case it seems like the current code will only check whether
> > memory_hugetlb_accounting was set on cgroup v2 or not, disregarding
> > the fact that cgroup v1 did not enable hugetlb accounting.
> >
> > I obviously prefer that any features are also added to cgroup v1,
> > because we still didn't make it to cgroup v2, especially when the
> > infrastructure is shared. On the other hand, I am pretty sure the
> > maintainers will not like what I am saying :)
>
> I have a weak preference.
>
> It's definitely a little weird that the v1 controller's behavior
> changes based on the v2 mount flag. And that if you want it as an
> otherwise exclusive v1 user, you'd have to mount a dummy v2.
>
> But I also don't see a scenario where it would hurt, or where there
> would be an unresolvable conflict between v1 and v2 in expressing
> desired behavior, since the memory controller is exclusive to one.
>
> While we could eliminate this quirk with a simple
> !cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) inside the charge function,
> it would seem almost punitive to add extra code just to take something
> away that isn't really a problem and could be useful to some people.
>
> If Tejun doesn't object, I'd say let's just keep implied v1 behavior.

I agree that adding extra code to take a feature away from v1 is
probably too much, but I also think relying on a v2 mount option is
weird. Would it be too much to just have a v1-specific flag as well
and use cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) to decide which flag
to read?