On 4/11/25 1:11 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
Hello.
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:23:15PM -0400, Waiman Long longman@redhat.com wrote:
--- a/mm/memcontrol-v1.h +++ b/mm/memcontrol-v1.h @@ -22,8 +22,6 @@ iter != NULL; \ iter = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, iter, NULL)) -unsigned long mem_cgroup_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool swap);
Hm, maybe keep it for v1 only where mem_cgroup_usage has meaning for memsw (i.e. do the opposite and move the function definition to -v1.c).
memcontrol-v1.c also include mm/internal.h. That is the reason why I can remove it from here.
void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg); unsigned long memcg_events(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int event); diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index b620d74b0f66..a771a0145a12 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -5963,6 +5963,10 @@ static void shrink_node_memcgs(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc) mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(target_memcg, memcg);
/* Skip memcg with no usage */if (!mem_cgroup_usage(memcg, false))continue;(Not only for v2), there is mem_cgroup_size() for this purpose (already used in mm/vmscan.c).
My understanding is that mem_cgroup_usage() is for both v1 and v2, while mem_cgroup_size() is for v2 only.
if (mem_cgroup_below_min(target_memcg, memcg)) { /* * Hard protection.diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c index 16f5d74ae762..bab826b6b7b0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_memcontrol.c @@ -525,8 +525,13 @@ static int test_memcg_protection(const char *root, bool min) goto cleanup; }
- /*
* Child 2 has memory.low=0, but some low protection is still being* distributed down from its parent with memory.low=50M. So the low* event count will be non-zero.*/
int no_low_events_index = 1;
int no_low_events_index = 2;See suggestion in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/awgbdn6gwnj4kfaezsorvopgsdyoty3yahdeanqvoxstz2w...
I have just replied on your suggestion.
Cheers, Longman
HTH, Michal