On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed 20-09-23 15:25:23, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 9/20/2023 1:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I mean, normally I would be just fine reverting this API change because
> > > it is disruptive but the only way to have the file available and not
> > > break somebody is to revert 58056f77502f ("memcg, kmem: further
> > > deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes") as well. Or to ignore any value written
> > > there but that sounds rather dubious. Although one could argue this
> > > would mimic nokmem kernel option.
> > >
> >
> > I just want to make sure we don't introduce yet another new behavior in this legacy
> > system. I have not seen breakage due to 58056f77502f. Mimicing nokmem sounds good but
> > does this mean "don't enforce limits" (that should be fine) or "ignore writes to the limit"
> > (=don't event store the written limit). The latter might have unintended consequences.
>
> Yes it would mean that the limit is never enforced. Bad as it is the
> thing is that the hard limit on kernel memory is broken by design and
> unfixable. This causes all sorts of unexpected kernel allocation
> failures that this is simply unsafe to use.
>
> All that being said I can see the following options
> 1) keep the current upstream status and not export the file
> 2) revert both 58056f77502f and 86327e8eb94 and make it clear
> that kmem.limit_in_bytes is unsupported so failures or misbehavior
> as a result of the limit being hit are likely not going to be
> investigated or fixed.
> 3) reverting like in 2) but never inforce the limit (so basically nokmem
> semantic)
>
> Shakeel, Johannes, Roman, Muchun Song what do you think?
I think the safe option would be to revert 86327e8eb94 for now and put
pr_warn_once even for the read of kmem.limit_in_bytes? We can retry
86327e8eb94 in a year or so.
However personally I would prefer option 1. Also I don't think
reverting 58056f77502f would give any benefit.
