| Message ID | 20220513171811.730-3-mkoutny@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | memcontrol selftests fixups | expand |
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > This is effectively a revert of commit cdc69458a5f3 ("cgroup: account > for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low()"). The case test_memcg_low > will fail with memory_recursiveprot until resolved in reclaim > code. > However, this patch preserves the existing helpers and variables for > later uses. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > index 4958b42201a9..eba252fa64ac 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c > @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root) > } > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) { > - int no_low_events_index = has_recursiveprot ? 2 : 1; > + int no_low_events_index = 1; > > oom = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "oom "); > low = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "low "); > -- > 2.35.3 > Reviewed-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 07:18:09PM +0200, Michal Koutny wrote: > This is effectively a revert of commit cdc69458a5f3 ("cgroup: account > for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low()"). The case test_memcg_low > will fail with memory_recursiveprot until resolved in reclaim > code. Hm, what are our plans here? Are we going to fix it soon-ish, or there is still no agreement on how to proceed?
Hi. On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:54:16AM -0700, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote: > Hm, what are our plans here? Are we going to fix it soon-ish, or there > is still no agreement on how to proceed? Here are some of my ideas in random order so far and comments: 0) mask memory.events:low -> not a real fix 1) don't do SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX roundup -> won't solve sudden lift of protection 2) instead of SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX over-reclaim, do same under-reclaim -> same problem as 1) 3) update children_low_usage transactionally (after reclaim round is done) - ??? 4) don't recursively distribute residual protection in the same reclaim round - ??? 5) iterate siblings from highest to lowest protection - not a solution 6) assign only >SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX of residuum - need more info I'm discouraged by possible complexity of 3) or 4), while 6) is what I'd like to look more into. HTH, Michal
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index 4958b42201a9..eba252fa64ac 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ static int test_memcg_low(const char *root) } for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(children); i++) { - int no_low_events_index = has_recursiveprot ? 2 : 1; + int no_low_events_index = 1; oom = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "oom "); low = cg_read_key_long(children[i], "memory.events", "low ");
This is effectively a revert of commit cdc69458a5f3 ("cgroup: account for memory_recursiveprot in test_memcg_low()"). The case test_memcg_low will fail with memory_recursiveprot until resolved in reclaim code. However, this patch preserves the existing helpers and variables for later uses. Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)