On Thu 07-05-20 10:00:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu 07-05-20 09:33:01, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -2600,8 +2596,23 @@ static int try_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > > schedule_work(&memcg->high_work); > > > break; > > > } > > > - current->memcg_nr_pages_over_high += batch; > > > - set_notify_resume(current); > > > + > > > + if (gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp_mask)) > > > + reclaim_over_high(memcg, gfp_mask, batch); > > > + > > > + if (page_counter_read(&memcg->memory) <= > > > + READ_ONCE(memcg->high)) > > > + break; > > > > I am half way to a long weekend so bear with me. Shouldn't this be continue? The > > parent memcg might be still in excess even the child got reclaimed, > > right? > > > > The reclaim_high() actually already does this walk up to the root and > reclaim from ones who are still over their high limit. Though having > 'continue' here is correct too. Ohh, right. As I've said weekend brain. I will have a proper look next week. This just hit my eyes. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
