On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:15:57AM -0400, Waiman Long <ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > I did see some low event in the no usage case because of the ">=" comparison > used in mem_cgroup_below_min().
Do you refer to A/B/E or A/B/F from the test? It's OK to see some events if there was non-zero usage initially. Nevertheless, which situation this patch changes that is not handled by mem_cgroup_below_min() already? > Yes, low event count for E is 0 in the !memory_recursiveprot case, but C/D > still have low events and setting no_low_events_index to -1 will fail the > test and it is not the same as not checking low event counts at all. I added yet another ignore_low_events_index variable (in my original proposal) not to fail the test. But feel free to come up with another implementation, I wanted to point out the "not specified" expectation for E with memory_recursiveprot. Michal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
