Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Don't increase effective low/min if no protection needed

[Waiman Long]

On 10/11/22 13:04, 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.

Yes, that is another possible way of looking at that problem. Will talk 
to our QE people of doing that.

Thanks,
Longman