On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 05:18:43PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 10:30:40AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > b) Only count cgroup swap events when they are actually due to a > > > cgroup's own limit. Exclude failures that are due to physical swap > > > shortage or other system-level conditions (like !THP_SWAP). Also > > > count them at the level where the limit is configured, which may be > > > above the local cgroup that holds the page-to-be-swapped. > > > > > > This is in line with how memory.swap.high, memory.high and > > > memory.max events are counted. > > > > > > However, it's a change in documented behavior. > > > > This option makes sense to me, but I can't speak to the change of > > documented behavior. However, looking at the code, it seems like if we do this > > the "max" & "fail" counters become effectively the same. "fail" would > > not provide much value then. > > > > I wonder if it makes sense to have both, and clarify that "fail" - > > "max" would be non-limit based failures (e.g. ran out of swap space), > > or would this cause confusion as to whether those non-limit failures > > were transient (THP fallback) or eventual? > > I somewhat second this. > > Perhaps, could the patch (and arguments) be split in two: > 1) count .max events on respective limit's level (other limits consistency), Okay, I'll split this one out. It's good to have regardless of what we do with the fail counter. Thanks
