On Wed 15-12-21 18:13:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2021-12-15 17:56:03 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 15-12-21 17:47:54, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2021-12-13 11:08:26 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Fri 10-12-21 16:22:01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I am sorry but I didn't get to read and digest the rest of the message > > > > yet. Let me just point out this > > > > > > > > > The problematic part here is mem_cgroup_tree_per_node::lock which can > > > > > not be acquired with disabled interrupts on PREEMPT_RT. The "locking > > > > > scope" is not always clear to me. Also, if it is _just_ the counter, > > > > > then we might solve this differently. > > > > > > > > I do not think you should be losing sleep over soft limit reclaim. This > > > > is certainly not something to be used for RT workloads and rather than > > > > touching that code I think it makes some sense to simply disallow soft > > > > limit with RT enabled (i.e. do not allow to set any soft limit). > > > > > > Okay. So instead of disabling it entirely you suggest I should take > > > another stab at it? Okay. Disabling softlimit, where should I start with > > > it? Should mem_cgroup_write() for RES_SOFT_LIMIT always return an error > > > or something else? > > > > Yeah, I would just return an error for RT configuration. If we ever need > > to implement that behavior for RT then we can look at specific fixes. > > Okay. What do I gain by doing this / how do I test this? Is running > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_*mem* sufficient to test all corner > cases here? I am not fully aware of all the tests but my point is that if the soft limit is not configured then there are no soft limit tree manipulations ever happening and therefore the code is effectivelly dead. Is this sufficient for the RT patchset to ignore the RT incompatible parts? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
