On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Waiman Long <[email protected]> wrote: > Am I correct to assume that the purpose of 1d09069f5313f ("selftests: > memcg: expect no low events in unprotected sibling") is to force a > failure in the test_memcg_low test to force a change in the current > behavior? Or was it the case that it didn't fail when you submit your > patch?
Yes, the failure had been intended to mark unexpected mode of reclaim
(there's still a reproducer somewhere in the references). However, I
learnt that:
a) it ain't easy to fix,
b) the only occurence of the troublesome behavior was in the test and
never reported by users in real life.
I've started to prefer the variant where the particular check is
indefinite since that.
HTH,
Michal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
