> 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. Muchun, Thanks.
