Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <c3110f12-5d9f-4907-a712-5a1004ec4fdc@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:23:49 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] sock: Fix improper heuristic on
 raising memory
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231016132812.63703-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
 <20231016132812.63703-3-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
 <d1271d557adb68b5f77649861faf470f265e9f6b.camel@redhat.com>
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1271d557adb68b5f77649861faf470f265e9f6b.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/19/23 4:53 PM, Paolo Abeni Wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 21:28 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> Before sockets became aware of net-memcg's memory pressure since
>> commit e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code."), the memory
>> usage would be granted to raise if below average even when under
>> protocol's pressure. This provides fairness among the sockets of
>> same protocol.
>>
>> That commit changes this because the heuristic will also be
>> effective when only memcg is under pressure which makes no sense.
>> Fix this by reverting to the behavior before that commit.
>>
>> After this fix, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() no longer considers
>> memcg's pressure. As memcgs are isolated from each other w.r.t.
>> memory accounting, consuming one's budget won't affect others.
>> So except the places where buffer sizes are needed to be tuned,
>> allow workloads to use the memory they are provisioned.
>>
>> Fixes: e1aab161e013 ("socket: initial cgroup code.")
> 
> I think it's better to drop this fixes tag. This is a functional change
> and with such tag on at this point of the cycle, will land soon into
> every stable tree. That feels not appropriate.
> 
> Please repost without such tag, thanks!
> 
> You can send the change to stables trees later, if needed.

OK. Shall I add a Acked-by tag for you?

Thanks!
	Abel