On Thu 30-05-19 13:52:10, Chris Down wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > On Wed 29-05-19 23:44:53, Chris Down wrote: > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong but the new > > > > calculation actually means that we always allow to scan even min > > > > protected memcgs right? > > > > > > We check if the memcg is min protected as a precondition for coming into > > > this function at all, so this generally isn't possible. See the > > > mem_cgroup_protected MEMCG_PROT_MIN check in shrink_node. > > > > OK, that is the part I was missing, I got confused by checking the min > > limit as well here. Thanks for the clarification. A comment would be > > handy or do we really need to consider min at all? > > You mean as part of the reclaim pressure calculation? Yeah, we still need > it, because we might only set memory.min, but not set memory.low. But then the memcg will get excluded as well right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
