On Tue 11-10-22 07:04:32, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > You are right about that. An alternative way to address this issue is to > > disable memory low event when memory.low isn't set. An user who want to > > track memory.low event has to set it to a non-zero value. Would that be > > acceptable? > > Wouldn't it make sense to fix the test? With recursive_prot on, the cgroup > actually is under low protection and it seems like the correct behavior is > to report the low events accordingly. Agreed, the semantic makes sense and it seems to be just the test that is not aware of it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
