On 06/02/25 09:00, Muchun Song wrote: > > >> On Feb 6, 2025, at 02:46, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 01:08:42PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 12:50:19PM -0500, Hamza Mahfooz wrote: >>>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> On 2/5/25 12:48, Hamza Mahfooz wrote: >>>>> I was just curious as to what the status of the issue described in [1] >>>>> is. It appears that the last time someone took a stab at it was in [2]. >>> >>> If memory serves, the sticking point was whether pages should indeed >>> be reparented on cgroup death, or whether they could be moved >>> arbitrarily to other cgroups that are still using them. >>> >>> It's a bit unfortunate, because the reparenting patches were tested >>> and reviewed, and the arbitrary recharging was just an idea that >>> ttbomk nobody seriously followed up on afterwards. >>> >>> We also recently removed the charge moving code from cgroup1, along >>> with the subtle page access/locking/accounting rules it imposed on the >>> rest of the MM. I'm doubtful there is much appetite in either camp for >>> bringing this back. >>> >>> So I would still love to see Muchun's patches merged. They fix a >>> seemingly universally experienced operational issue in memcg, and we >>> shouldn't hold it up unless somebody actually posts alternative code. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I think the recharging (or whatever the alternative) can be a followup >> to this. I agree this is a good change. > > I agree with you. We've been encountering dying memory issues for years > on our servers. As Roman said, I need to refresh my patches. So I need > some time for refreshing. > We have seen the dying cgroups issue too and look forward to your patches. Happy to help with testing/reviewing. -- Thanks, Kamalesh
