On Wed 23-01-19 17:31:44, Chris Down wrote: > memory.stat and other files already consider subtrees in their output, > and we should too in order to not present an inconsistent interface. > > The current situation is fairly confusing, because people interacting > with cgroups expect hierarchical behaviour in the vein of memory.stat, > cgroup.events, and other files. For example, this causes confusion when > debugging reclaim events under low, as currently these always read "0" > at non-leaf memcg nodes, which frequently causes people to misdiagnose > breach behaviour. The same confusion applies to other counters in this > file when debugging issues. > > Aggregation is done at write time instead of at read-time since these > counters aren't hot (unlike memory.stat which is per-page, so it does it > at read time), and it makes sense to bundle this with the file > notifications. I do not think we can do that for two reasons. It breaks the existing semantic userspace might depend on and more importantly this is not a correct behavior IMO. You have to realize that stats are hierarchical because that is how we account. Events represent a way to inform that something has happened at the specific level of the tree though. If you do not setup low/high/max limit then you simply cannot expect to be informed those get hit because they cannot by definition. Or put it other way, if you are waiting for those events you really want to know the (sub)tree they happened and if you propagate the event up the hierarchy you have hard time to tell that (you would basically have to exclude all but the lowest one and that is an awkward semantic at best. Maybe we want to document this better but I do not see we are going to change the behavior. > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> btw. I do not see this patch posted anywhere yet it already comes with an ack. Have I just missed a previous version? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
