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;
Message-ID: <69c50d431e2927ce6a6589b4d7a1ed21f0a4586c.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 3/3] sock: Ignore memcg pressure heuristics when
 raising allocated
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.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
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:08:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20231019120026.42215-3-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
References: <20231019120026.42215-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
         <20231019120026.42215-3-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 20:00 +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.
>=20
> That commit changes this because the heuristic will also be
> effective when only memcg is under pressure which makes no sense.
> So revert that behavior.
>=20
> After reverting, __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.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> Acked-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>

It's totally not clear to me why you changed the target tree from net-
next to net ?!? This is net-next material, I asked to strip the fixes
tag exactly for that reason.

Since there is agreement on this series and we are late in the cycle, I
would avoid a re-post (we can apply the series to net-next anyway) but
any clarification on the target tree change will be appreciated,
thanks!

Paolo